Episode 157 ... The Creation of Meaning - Beauvoir

Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Get more:
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Find the podcast:
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/2Shpxw7...
RSS: www.philosophizethis.libsyn.org/
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂

[@Karmaaaaaa]

You are very articulate and deliver these ideas in a very understandable and beautiful way. You don’t impose any extra meaning, which I find is very hard and valuable when sharing these ideas with other people. You are making a change somewhere in the world, through us, people listening any valuing the work you have been putting a very serious effort into. Kudos and appreciate all you do.

[@CancelledPhilosopher]

Beauvoir had interesting thoughts on meaning, creativity, and the ethics of ambiguity.

[@craftycri]

So... re-listening the lecture, I have had this wonder, which you highlight... none of us can avoid the question of meaning, and morality, and Truth... we simply cannot function with out some framework, some conclusion, and I've found that odd: a mind in a sea of mindlessness... driven by inherent necessity, to "make sense" of that sea. Almost like it was on purpose... the universe is the canvas upon which we paint our self-portrait. And I have to wonder where this portrait will be hung and who will value it, for I do believe it surely will be valued.

[@kryptophix6302]

Thank you so much for all that you do. I love your podcasts!!!!!!!!

[@craigwillms61]

"nothing really matters, nothing really matters to me. Any way the wind blows..."

[@jeremyn4397]

Love when you drop some Beauvoir content.

[@mapc100]

Listening to this podcast has been one of my preferred ways to learn English and new vocabulary. Thank you for the excellent work you make. Greetings from Colombia.

[@gazrater1820]

This lady is up there with Camus 🎯💡. Great ☎️ …🦅

[@charlestaylor8624]

Petting my dog now. Her smooth fur has meaning.

[@mulualemtekle6094]

Great work!!!

[@beebee7671]

Loved this

[@kuroarimiyazaki4628]

This is excellent! Thank you for making it so easy to understand :)

[@JennyBesserit]

Thank you for making these

[@PeterZeeke]

Amazing episode

[@addytov]

love your podcasts .

[@californication2000]

Thank for everything stephen!

[@IgneousGorilla]

Loved this one

[@fabriziodallolmo9840]

So fkng good!!!!!!

[@francisabellana780]

Thank you! U clear my mind. At least most of the time

[@Troy-ol5fk]

quite inspiring

[@notoriouspeace9806]

such a wonderful philosophy! listening to this helped clear my world view a bit.

[@iamcaesar6741]

Another excellent video

[@throughliterarylens273]

Interesting and simple way of relating to philosophy.wonderful work.do keep it up.

[@alexandervidal1212]

Nice video. thank you

[@Theunknownpast_official]

Another great video

[@maryjanemccarthy2907]

Perfection.

[@craftycri]

I really appreciate your work! What seems to be the unstated predicate of these philosophers you've illuminated is the existence, in reality, of Preference; good, better, bad, preferred, disliked, uncomfortable, etc. and its oddity in this Universe. All of the questions about and proposed solutions to our state devolve to our Preferential management of Preference; denial, acceptance, discipline, freedom... But the elephant in the room, imo, is its existence at all, in a universe of mindless mechanics. I would argue that this single element demands a transcendent solution, some spiritual reality, and if it doesn't exist, neither does an "I", and I absolutely exist.

[@jasonhendrickson2289]

Why would a "universe of mindless mechanics" demand a "solution"? Where is the problem to solve? It's simply a hypothesis of a statement of fact, not an explanation of a shortcoming of the universe that requires a solution. Why is a "spiritual reality" a prerequisite for the concept of "I"? You're just using circular logic to create an argument that basically says: I believe a spiritual reality must exists in order for "I" to exist, and "I" exist therefore a spiritual reality exists".

[@craftycri]

@@jasonhendrickson2289 Thank you for your reply... You ask, Why would a mind in a sea of mindlessness demand a solution. Because minds exist, preference exists, and can be differentiated from bottom up creations, we have no knowledge of such a capacity; mind, coming from a mindless source (a subject I'd be happy to expound upon) "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference" -Dawkins Yet, we are convinced otherwise... so, let's assume our conviction is a MONUMENTAL accident of this Universe, somehow this universe spit out a mechanism which thinks its an "I". And If we were honest, we'd have to admit this "I" notion is an illusion, preference does not exist in "reality", only mechanics. For an "I" things matter, there is value, meaning, but, in "reality" nothing matters, there is no meaning, no value, no good, or better, despite our conviction to the contrary. If Dawkin's observation is EVER true of this "I", and in a materialistic context it clearly is when we die, then its ALWAYS true of this "I", even now in "my" response to "you"; offering you a difference which "in reality" makes no difference whatsoever. The notion of "I", as in "I exist" is predicated upon a concept of a "real" value, even more real than the things with which we interact, a reality which can only be true in a transcendent context (see above), and if this isn't true, if this is a hoax, a happy accident of the Universe, then anything you value, is illusory, a KNOWN falsehood fostered for practical reasons; aka a lie you tell yourself . As to circularity, I would argue that the adoption of the principle: living to live (till we die) is the epitome of that fallacy; the most contemptible lie of all. In reality: "Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" -Shakespeare

[@shaman9]

"You are going to fall, and not with style". I feel seen

[@MrCooljeppe]

Oh how fantastic, im just getting into exestential psychology! :D

[@ronnyponce3796]

I love your content. I’m thinking about getting a patreon account to repay the channel. I listen to the podcasts on Spotify all day. I’ll be upset when I go through every single one lol. But do you post more on the patreon ? Like is there exclusive content ?

[@DjTahoun]

🌷😇🌷

[@charlestaylor8624]

The unknowing leads to mysticism.

[@admiralsimox3307]

hello i love your show, can you please talk about Benedict anderson book "imagined communities" he discusses nationalism

[@sailorvenus420]

Can u do a video on Viktor Frankl?

[@gazrater1820]

Great call. ‘Search for meaning!’ Just reading this great work🎯💡

[@strangemarkings]

Well sell the vape store and tell Grandma Beatrice: there's a new episode of Philosphize This up in here!

[@kpop.uwu.nation]

Optimism cult, aka every school, every mainstream celebrity, every parent, every culture

[@elijaguy]

8:56 do I understand right that wind is a subject, trees are objects? wind is freely acting on the trees? anything like this?

[@mohammadalirashidioun9738]

✌️👍👍

[@AnnaPrzebudzona]

Yeah, take responsibility for your actions even though in a totally deterministic universe there's no room for free will whatsoever. It's a convenient illusion that helps us navigate reality.

[@charlestaylor8624]

Define what you mean by meaning, or is that an absurd too?

[@charlestaylor8624]

Neither this or that. Zen.

[@charlestaylor8624]

Quit yakking on the Romanian. Get to Simone. Structure is a kind of meaning, by my definition. Pleasure as the Epicurean say has many meanings. Carot juice home made is great and meaningful as yoy swallow.

[@lenafelipe]

Is he talking about Emil Cioran? I can’t quite understand his pronunciation.

[@hanskung3278]

So.....you can't be "intellectually honest" if you believe in God?.....I don't get it.

[@adicbn]

Simone de Beauvoir is just too emotional in her thinking and this affects her judgments

[@standowner6979]

Too emotional!!! Explain.