Drunk Philosophy #1... "Show me the way to the next Schopenhauer"

[@KaneB]

0:00 - Intro 4:10 - Rousseau 8:26 - Alcohol vs. other drugs 11:00 - Hedonism and the good life 15:40 - Schopenhauer 21:36 - Why I'm so fantastic... and dating advice 26:30 - Sex with a watermelon 28:50 - Reflecting on alcohol 32:20 - Utilitarianism sucks 48:43 - "Pandemics that kill all the old people are pretty good actually" (Bentham 1789: 30-31) 54:25 - Reflecting on alcohol again 55:49 - Utilitarianism still sucks 1:07:34 - Coronavirus 1 1:28:20 - Forgetting to chat about counterfactuals 1:31:28 - More on utilitarianism 1:33:45 - Bestiality, consent, and contemporary feminism 1:47:00 - Would you rather... 1:52:14 - Revisiting Schopenhauer and the good life 1:55:06 - Sexy burping 1:56:43 - More on Schopenhauer 2:05:10 - Anarchy 2:10:10 - Skepticism of one's rational capacities 2:14:09 - Coronavirus 2 2:18:18 - MeToo is bullshit 2:26:58 - Equality 2:40:06 - More skeptical worries

[@alduin2000]

I'm not sure whether I want to find out how the hell 26:30 comes up or not...

[@dylan9966]

Because you broke this down, I am 100% more liable to watch some

[@markpovell]

Despite having consumed hours of KZbinry I have never felt moved to comment before; this is simply unmissable. As someone approaching the end of my sixth decade, having spent the majority of those years inhabiting art-schools on both sides of the counter and now rather tardily, trying to develop my critical faculties, I thoroughly recommend this channel and especially this episode;. This is what KZbin is for.

[@Bilboswaggins2077]

Best philosophy channel on KZbin

[@KaneB]

If anybody is interested, it may be worth noting that we spoke for about six hours overall and during that time, I drank six beers (three of the cans I held up, two of the bottles, and one can of Stella Artois). I didn't like any of them, but they definitely altered my mental states somewhat.

[@ColeNasrallah]

It may also be worth noting that over that time I drank FOUR LITERS of Peach Bellini and one Tecate. I categorically refuse to apologise for any incoherence on my part.

[@torcoAaAa]

my liver salutes your liver

[@ColeNasrallah]

It's a very costly champion. 🍻

[@ABurgess]

I’m not even this lucid when I’m sober.

[@torcoAaAa]

also Cole is the loveliest

[@ColeNasrallah]

You're too kind. I certainly appreciate it. Participating in this sort of thing has the possibility of being highly embarrassing for me, so seriously, thank you for being encouraging.

[@douglaspackard3515]

@@ColeNasrallah You come off as very intelligent and relatable in the video, I don't think you've got anything to be embarrassed about! Kane must have been "kind" and edited those bits out ;) PS: You did manage to upstage Kane's... unique... dating self-advertisement by accident though. I know I want to be smelling flowers and tasting delicious food and loving life! *swoons*

[@torcoAaAa]

@@ColeNasrallah not at all, I'm not being supportive, i really do enjoy it whenever you pop up on the old KZbin feed

[@reverendaero]

I did this last night with a friend and then attempted to explain postmodernism, it actually worked better than I expected with the help of youtube videos

[@BurnigLegionsBlade]

Absolutely loved the conversation and I feel like had we met IRL we would've been great friends

[@luismonig4866]

I love this.

[@kleezer1]

Lmao I loved this

[@salpetre4502]

I agree that morals are made of brute emotion + the need to regulate society in some way, but I would argue that it is also the best overall strategy, even in an egoistic strategy. Lack of care for other people's suffering ultimately leads to others not caring about your suffering, which prevents you from living happily, or sometimes from living at all. Morals would be a way to balance out things ; everyone meets people who are superior to them in some way/threatening, as well as people who are easily attackable. Moral would be an imperative of self preservation, which benefits several. Being nice to people, and considered a "good person" and being egoistic don't necessarily contradict, neither does anti-realism oppose to benevolence. It is merely a key, a tool which happens to work for several people, which is why it is deemed preferable.

[@salpetre4502]

wait wouldn't that be a utilitarianist justification of morals ? I'm a bit pissed as well, forgive me for I have been incoherent

[@TheSjcful]

the "liberation swig" LOL

[@second9583]

I really enjoyed listening to this, although I'm personally not sure if util can justify the corona. I hope there can be a #2

[@torcoAaAa]

Kane is on the verge of Buddhist enlightenment

[@_jhc]

oh dear

[@1999_reborn]

JHC I LOVE YOU

[@Lewshiz]

Kane, more of these m8, these are good Cole, what are you vaping, pls respond xo

[@ColeNasrallah]

It's just nicotine. I'm tragically allergic to thc.

[@andrewwells6323]

I really love your videos. I always wonder, when you make videos do you research or plan them much in advance? Or you just generally have all this stuff in your head? I know obviously some videos are more off the cuff.

[@KaneB]

All of the lecture-style videos are researched and scripted. This video was completely off the cuff. I don't have it all in my head. I'd say I've forgotten at least 90% of the information presented in previous videos.

[@andrewwells6323]

Kane B thx man. Makes me feel better about myself, I forget _everything_ haha. Hope you’re keeping well in these times.

[@tj288]

I think there is a bit of strawmaning of the feminist and the me too movement when you talk about it, also the criminalisation rate for rape is incredibly low so even if people in general believe the victims that does not translate to punishment for the 'perpetrators' atleast in my country. Also me too movement might have some deficits in terms of critical/skeptical scrutiny, it still had a messureably positive impact in terms of raising awareness about rape, consent and contemporary feminist issues

[@Krakkk]

If power structure is so stupid How do you explain that woman couldn't vote and man could for such a long time? What is it if not power imbalance?

[@KaneB]

I personally prefer not to talk about "power imbalance" even in this kind of case, just because the phrase is so vague, but I already said in the video that where there are differences in legal rights I don't really have any objections to treating it as a power imbalance. I already gave Apartheid as an example of a system in which there was a power imbalance between white people and black people. The problem is that I'm not sure how "power imbalance" should in general be defined, so unless we're just using it as a shorthand to express some previously specified differences, such as differences in legal rights, then I'm not sure what is being said when we say, for example, that Apartheid introduced a power imbalance. This is especially problematic if we're conceiving of power imbalance in a moralized way.

[@MitBoy_]

I have inverse problem with utilitarianism, frankly, which is how can anyone reject it, it's inconceivable to me. Like, literally the definition of suffering is something that is fundamentally undesirable!

[@KaneB]

The most we can say is that suffering is always undesireable to the individual who is suffering. Actually, it's not obvious that we can say even this much, since there are lots of situations where people actually seem to seek out or otherwise value their own suffering, but I'll ignore those for the sake of argument. So X's suffering is undesireable for X. Okay. But why should I care about X's suffering? And even if I do care about X's suffering, why should I treat X's suffering as being of as much importance as any other arbitrary person's suffering?

[@MitBoy_]

@@KaneB Sure, I'm an antirealist myself, so I don't think there's some objective reason why you should, but it seems like universality of morality is essential of aspect of it (otherwise I might as well just be an egoist, which is acceptable, but still seems like a dissapointing result). And the only way you can make claim about moral weirght suffering somewhat universal in any satisfactory manner (at least to me), is just accept that anyone's suffering\pleasure matters.

[@KaneB]

​@@MitBoy_ Universalizability is compatible with partiality; consider a rule such as "all people ought to give preferential treatment to their loved ones", where this is viewed as foundational rather than as derived from some underlying norm (obviously, a utilitarian might endorse this rule, if they judge that giving preferential treatment to one's loved ones would be the best way to maximize happiness). That you're an antirealist only makes it stranger to me that you can't conceive of how others could reject utilitarianism. In fact, I no longer feel that I understand what you're claiming. I'm assuming it's either (a) you think there are overwhelmingly obvious reasons in favour of utilitarianism, (b) you don't know/don't understand the reasons that lead people to reject utilitarianism, or (c) you think that all non-utilitarian theories are incoherent in some way. Are any of those the correct interpretation, or are you saying something else?

[@MitBoy_]

​@@KaneB Yes, that would be a way Universalizability is compatible with partiality, it just seems arbitrary ( well, your example is less arbitrary because such rule is compatable with egoism, I was thinking more in line of prefferential treatment of family memebers or your fellow citizens. e.t.s.). Basically, if you do care about suffering at all, you basically have to got all or nothing (Utilitarianism or egoism). Mostly a and b. Basically, any ethical theory that isn't identical to utilitarianism would generate scenario where we ought to accept state of affairs where suffering isn't minimized. And how can you possiblly accept that!

[@KaneB]

​@@MitBoy_ I don't see why it's any more or less arbitrary than utilitarianism. Why, exactly, do you have to go all or nothing? By analogy, suppose I am given 10 cups, and I'm asked to distribute water across the cups. Without specifying any further conditions to the scenario, putting an equal amount of water in each cup is just as arbitrary as putting lots of water in two cups and very little in the others. Arbitrariness is a matter of the reasons for one's decision, not the decision itself; and non-utilitarians can give reasons for rejecting impartiality. The fact that some ethical theory X generates the scenario you describe is probably only going to seem like a problem to utilitarians. People who don't have utilitarian inclinations may value things other than, or in addition to, the minimization of suffering. More generally, here are a couple of ways people might object to utilitarianism: (1) It might be held that utilitarianism is unworkable, because it cannot be known - or, more strongly, there is simply no fact of the matter - whether or not a particular action will maximize happiness in a long run. (2) It might be held that (a) the appropriate methodology for moral theory is reflective equilibrium, where we play off intuitive judgements against broader principles in order to achieve a coherence among them; but that (b) utilitarianism entails intuitively absurd conclusions in too wide a range of scenarios, and sacrifices too many principles that are intuitively morally relevant. Now, I'm not asking to agree with either of these points. Obviously, utilitarians have plenty of ways of responding to both of them. But do you at least understand why others accept them? If so, you should find the rejection of utilitarianism conceivable.

[@JXZX1]

Don’t worry: according to MMT countries with sufficient monetary sovereignty can effectively print money ;) Social security won’t die anytime soon.

[@shannon8111]

Drinking beer that is not cold. That is just making it hard on yourself. Mixer would have been the easier drink.

[@caeloMius]

Pro-socisl behaviors could and likely are a result if evolutionary conditioning. What's more it would be odd to behave otherwise then how you believe a good person behaves. Not that i'm affirming vertue ethics, its just that behave in line with how you believe you should behave is pleasurable.

[@douglaspackard3515]

I watched the first hour, but I got my own philosophizing to do. Very entertaining conversation! If you get a chance, check out the Deleuze reading group/podcast series I've been helping to organize: soundcloud.com/quarantine_collective

[@joop5415]

Skipped straight to MeToo section and was instantly faced with a field of strawmen. No one is asking you to *believe* the accusers to the extent that one would need to to have anyone convicted. You can still have your doubts and consider the case reasonably enough to discern whether or not the person involved is actually lying (which does sometimes happen). You're being asked to take their accusations seriously *on their face* since we, generally speaking, have no reason to believe that they're lying. No one is asking you to just believe one persons word against another's for no reason. The reality of the situation we have is that women are, in many cases, taken advantage of in their work places and to even accuse their alleged harasser or rapist is to risk their job and livelihood and, if they are found out to be lying, their innocence (since doing so is itself a crime). This is enough reason to take their claims seriously on their face and you're going to need to do a better job than just saying "eXerCisE sKePtIcIsM" to conclude otherwise. Second, no one is asking you take all instances of power imbalance as instances that negate our ability to consent. That would be absurd (but not because of the example you gave, which was awful, due to power being context-sensitive). This kind of leverage comes in degrees and there are clear examples where the power imbalance and *it's explicit and intentional use* creates a problem for anyone who wants to claim that the actions were consensual. The most obvious case being the charges levelled against Harvey Weinstein *for which he was found guilty*. Your video lecture content is usually very well thought-out and presented but I dread to think what else this discussion has in store.

[@Mogwai88]

@gerard dearie good counter-response +1

[@joop5415]

@gerard dearie All that paragraph says to me is that the notion of "power imbalance" is vague and that the high-profile cases are from bourgeoise positions. I don't doubt either of those things. I even said *in my own comment* that the concept is vague. Neither of these things are sufficient to disregard the entire MeToo movement, unfortunately. It looks like you took a long time to say basically nothing. (Also, calling my response "woke-splaining" makes you look very insecure about your position. If you can't make your argument without spitting off cringey buzzwords then there's basically no point in carrying on.)

[@KaneB]

"No one is asking you to believe the accusers to the extent that one would need to to have anyone convicted " It's amusing that this comes right after a complaint about strawmen... I never said they were asking for that. Indeed, it's important for many of them that they don't ask for that, because one of the stock responses to those of us who still like to use our critical faculties is exactly to say "this isn't a court of law". Their point being: the epistemic standards of a court are higher than the epistemic standards appropriate in everyday life, so it's acceptable to believe an accusation, and to act accordingly, even if we all recognize that there wouldn't be enough evidence to secure a conviction. "You're being asked to take their accusations seriously on their face since we, generally speaking, have no reason to believe that they're lying " What exactly is the difference between "taking an accusation seriously on its face" and believing the accusation, especially bearing in mind that people can have degrees of belief (so "I believe X" doesn't entail "I am certain that X")? If taking an accusation seriously simply amounts to acknowledging that the accusation might be true, that's fine, but that's compatible with an entirely agnostic position which is not how most proponents of MeToo actually behave. Anyway, re lying: People lie all the time for all kinds of reasons. There are also many cases where (a) an accusation will not pose a risk to an accuser's livelihood; (b) even if the accusation does pose a risk to an accuser's livelihood, this is not a problem for the accuser since they have other, equally adequate, plans for securing a livelihood; (c) even if the accusation poses a risk to the accuser's livelihood in a way that would be a problem for the accuser, the accuser has incorrectly evaluated the consequences of making an accusation and so is unaware of the risk being taken. On top of this, people may have positive reasons to lie that they take to outweigh the potential risk - for example, a personal vendetta against the accused, a desire to elicit sympathy from others, a plan to use the accusation to achieve fame in the media, etc. Of course, none of this shows that we should believe that any particular accuser is lying. Indeed, I'd say that even if an accuser is at absolutely no risk in making the accusation, and seems to have a personal vendetta against the accused, and seems to be using the accusation as a tool of self-promotion, etc., none of that is a reason to believe that they are lying. The appropriate attitude, in lieu of other evidence, is simply agnosticism. If that's your attitude, then we don't really disagree, though I would say that you're being rather naive about how the MeToo movement has actually played out. "The most obvious case being the charges levelled against Harvey Weinstein " Which charges? Weinstein was accused of all sorts of things, including rape. Obviously I think rape is terrible. The problem with the MeToo movement is that it's targeting people who haven't done anything wrong - or at least, haven't done anything seriously wrong - such as Louis C.K. They tend to treat pretty much any sexual action that has even the potential to make other people uncomfortable as a serious violation. That's prudish, sex-negative bullshit. (Also... "eXerCisE sKePtIcIsM" LOL, imagine coming to a philosophy channel with this kind of dismissive attitude to the epistemological problems surrounding testimony.)

[@joop5415]

@gerard dearie You must be joking, right? I gave you an actual argument, whether you like it or not. The things you said just had no relationship to the claims I was making. If all you have to say when someone disagrees with you is "muh social justice" "muh thought crime", please go back to watching Sargon.

[@Krakkk]

@gerard dearie You are a really sad person lol