วีดีโอ

On the subject of the avoidance of pain. I know HG Wells is problematic in his own ways. But the movie of Things to Come has a wonderful statement to the effect that Utopia is not a world without death and suffering, but a world where death and suffering are worthwile. There is a difference between dying from dysentary or war, and dying while trying to accomplish skmething great or noble, like flying to the moon.

Do you by any chance know a philosopher called Jay Dyer?

Good video! You brought out many true things that are usually overlooked, also beautiful thoughts, more pls!

......that was incredible.

The Boys "heroes" are so fucking bad that they actually make root for the guy im apparently supposed to hate.

Its not our current threat but that doesn't mean its eliminated as a possibility for all time. People really should be reading numerous dystopians, all of them are warnings of current trends that may well lead to a bad outcome if nothing corrects it. The trick is to be on guard against them all, rather than disregarding the one because another seems closer to today's reality. Unfortunately people will have to seek those novels out for themselves, schools just aren't going to, other than the ones you mentioned.

Good stuff:) The social contract is the start of tyranny. You'll have less freedom but more safety.

Manipulation is a symptom of psychopathy, but it's the bread and butter of socialism, which is why socialism always fails. For socialists are psychopaths.

I've been trying to imagine new superheroes whose powers are limited only by all of their internal virtues and survival instincts and heroes who have powers based on an ideal classic hero and an anti-hero at the same time.

Anyone who’s an actual fan of Superman knows that multiple of his villains basically are deconstructions already. Lex Luthor is a completely self absorbed billionaire who thinks he’s the only image of true competence and is the only one who is actually using his power the way it should be. Zod is literally a misguided Great Man who is driven by an inability to let go of his lost homeworld and obsessed with remaking it.

Great video and topic, though I think your political solutions are utilitarian in themselves and weaken your broader points. It was just a bit jarring. Excellent analysis, but I think advocating taxation of ugly buildings and bringing back flogging seems a bit silly and might lose people who'd otherwise be on board with what you're saying. That said, I agree with the overall premise, and think you did a better job assessing this idea than most.

You are correct in that the school system fails to open our minds to possibilities and interpretations, but there is a logic leap in your understanding of Brave New World. You are falling prey to the N graph paradox: if life is improving the more choice, freedom and material wealth we have, why would an extreme abundance of those things will suddenly drop us into a dystopia? Why is extreme bad automatically? It's just much more feasible to imagine a few evil selfish men hoarding power and control to themselves to the detriment of all others than to see all human endeavors as leading up a mountain and towards a cliff.

I think the Boys is less of a deconstruction and more a example of "Why we can't have good things" But I miss the true heroes which inspire as well and we need a healthy dose of both.

Reminding me of how Internet pitstop said that in another timeline, the Pokémon games would have adopted a quasi 2D voxel art like style like with Octopath

If I had the kind of power that would elevate me to the status of "superhero", I would use it to make a world in which everyone would feel safe giving up their super powers forever. People who believe in the narrative that greed and corruption are "human nature" don't understand the first thing about how much material conditions and propaganda can alter human behavior. If you teach people that greed and corruption is "natural" and you establish a system that rewards that behavior, that is what you will get. If it persists for long enough, no one is left who has seen humans behave otherwise. Thus, they assume greed and corruption are "human nature", blindly believing it's axiomatic while only making the most superficial of observations. Then you have people who have fallen for the trap that direct democracy is just chaos. They take the behavior of those already in power and project that behavior onto how people would behave in a direct democracy. The problem with that is, the people in power now are doing what they do, because they never have to experience what it's like to be on the receiving end of their policies. Under a direct democracy, everyone directly faces the fallout of their policy choices. Just like the kid who sticks a key in an outlet, people in a direct democracy will figure out that acting like the elites of capitalism is self-mutilating.

While I understand where you're coming from, I think you're ultimately just dancing around the sheer inhumanity of meat eating in the first place. The price we pay for giving up meat is so trivial and easy compared to the totality of suffering inflicted from us maintaining it, because put simply, there is no way to humanly kill. As for practicality, there is absolutely no necessity or reason why we have to continue killing animals, and we have accomplished much more difficult things. We have vastly improved the quality of life in the last 200 years through technology, we have turned slavery from the cornerstone of international trade into for the most part a relic, and we have destroyed dictators and tyrants who risked plunging the world into hatred and decay. So then, why should such a simple act against blatant cruelty be the thing that is impossible to overcome? It really just seems like throwing your hands in the air because it's what's convenient, because all those other things were accomplished by people long ago, and don't require even the slightest personal sacrifice now to maintain. But that's exactly how complacency sets in, and I think if we let ourselves become complacent with such an egregious violation of even the most basic moral codes, then we can easily let ourselves become complacent with any form of cruelty as well. I think Leo Tolstoy said it best, "Flesh eating is simply immoral, as it involves the performance of an act which is contrary to moral feeling: By killing, man suppresses in himself, unnecessarily, the highest spiritual capacity, that of sympathy and pity towards living creatures like himself and by violating his own feelings becomes cruel. As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields."

I want to throw my hat in the ring, despite firmly being in the camp of Superheroes are good and cool actually. The "Great Man" critique of superheroes is broadly true, but reductive. Bear with me. Generally, yes. The premise of Superheroes implies that only a select few are capable of solving the world's problems. Mostly, by punching them. And the stagnant status quo and the evergrowing roster of villains (because comics) imply that whatever they're doing is only a bandage to cover a crack on a dam. No matter how many villains the MCU kill off, like a hydra, they only multiply. From this angle, they have a point and raise valid questions. Should all problems rely on waiting for someone more powerful than yourself to step up to solve it? Should they be solved with violence? Should we protect, rewind, progress or attack the status quo? But from another, let's read these comics more closely. For every villain Superman, Batman, Flash or Spider-Man punch, how many times do they sincerely try to talk them down? The world's greatest detective calls his mentally ill villains by their names, puts them into a mental hospital which he's trying to reform. Some of these villains actually reform. Flash's rogues stopped killing. Superman is a boy scout. And Spider-Man has risked his life to save his villains. On the topic of Spider-Man, check out his movies. Spidey wasn't a leader. He was just a friendly, inspirational guy. The people of New York returned the favor on the bridge, in the train, with the cranes. Because more importantly than "With great power...", there's "Anyone can be Spider-Man". Sometimes, superhero stories can teach that you don't always need to wait for the "Great Man" to save you. Rather: that if you have the opportunity to help somebody, powers or not, you should take it.

amazing video!

Schools need to go back to teaching more Philosophy, History and Arts. And not so much Maths and Grammar. Learning calculus and spelling perfectly without critical sense or creativity turns people into machines

While "1984" is absolute depressing and horrifying and for a while seemed to be a real possibility how totalitarian regimes come to and hold power, the idea of universal "newthink" and "doublespeak" that is centrally enforced doesn't seem to be enforceable on a global scale. That being said, regimes like that in North Korea or even in the former GDR might give a glimpse how a real "1984" might look like. We of course now have a different kind of dystopia, one that isn't centrally controlled but also more internalized and insipid.

I still prefer J.G. Ballard.

BRILLIANT

Good content 😎

Excel at mediocrity or excel at the mundane? Wouldn't excelling at any of the typical domains itself be the antithesis of mediocrity? How are certain domains necessarily the embodiment of mediocrity? Also, if you did actually mean the mundane instead of mediocrity, what makes combat any less mundane? Also, are you referring to anything additional to 'being a good leader who sacrifices for others' as well when you say "true nobility"? What exactly do you mean by "true nobility"?

The "New Romanticism" you're proposing is just another form of the psychological cope philosophers and thinkers have had along the development of the forces of production. Every time in history that industrialism and its utilitarian/"rationalist" ideological cement arises, there is a wave of intellectuals claiming how "reason was a mistake" and "we should go back to subjectivism." It happened with Hume, it happened with the Hegelians, it happened with Nietzsche and it happened in the XXth century with post-modernism and its many branches. Its result was nothing more than a self-absorbed illusion incentivized by capitalist states to null every actual dissent, and it was blown apart by the objective reality of events like 9/11 or the Covid pandemic. With all due respect, most takes I've seen from your channel seem like milquetoast post-modernism, an idealization of the subjective and "art" or "aesthetics" as a quasi-mystical means to a "salvation" from an existential threat we cannot even begin to understand. You cannot "reject" the Enlightenment, as if was a response to very real problems, such as the stagnation of feudalism and the development of technology, and therefore cannot be blamed for its consequences, you can only "grow out of it." I'd argue Marxist thought is its best offspring, as it embraces the study of both the objective reality of the Enlightenment and that of the reality of the subject, the mind, and how it is affected by its environment. If you really see fault in rationalism or scientific thought, why are you rallying towards illusion and false conciousness instead of making it "evolve," by promoting an actual understanding of both objective and subjective realities, for example?

Most of it is just generic edgelord garbage. Just give us the heroes we know and love.

Anti-Sex League = Gen Z's MeToo Movement

261st sub, keep going homie

The creator of _The Boys_ hated superheroes. He felt like they take away from real life heroes.

The Great Man who has achieved martial prowess (who is helped by 6 friends who do all of the fighting…)

There’s a lot of begging the question in this… Super heroes don’t represent an elite. They represent the fact that anyone of us can do extraordinary things. This is why the concept of the secret identity is so important that an everyday person can reveal that underneath they are a force of good. And they typically fight characters villains who represent this idea that we should fall in line. Darkseid and Lex Luthor are great examples. And revolutionary action throughout history has come from groups working together and community. The great man idea is a myth. The civil rights movement was a well coordinated team effort. The Haitian revolution, French Revolution. Movement toward leftist policy has always been a team effort to the extent that the idea that there is any one leader is silly. Youre mixing up figure head with leader.

Another problem worth addressing is the phenomenon of the Literary Canon. The canonical dystopian novels are 1984 and Brave New World, plus recently The Handmaid's Tale. All discussions of the dangers to our society, this broadcast incuded, devolve into a discussion of which of the two (or three) dystopias imagined decades ago we're heading to, like one of those though-limiting multiple choice questions to which the answer can only be A, B or C.

The lack of reconstruction based narratives lies with the cynicism of our era. To reconstruct you run the risk of just repeating the problems the deconstruction exposed. So why rebuild? Why construct what will harm you? If nobody knows how to make a good society then why try? These stories are written by 40 year olds on average, they have seen it all when it comes to laboring for a system that wants and will give them nothing in return. To ask for reconstruction one must first earn it. We don't have anything to give besides a consumer's critique.

The lack of reconstruction based narratives lies with the cynicism of our era. To reconstruct you run the risk of just repeating the problems the deconstruction exposed. So why rebuild? Why construct what will harm you? If nobody knows how to make a good society then why try? These stories are written by 40 year olds on average, they have seen it all when it comes to laboring for a system that wants and will give them nothing in return. To ask for reconstruction one must first earn it. We don't have anything to give besides a consumer's critique.

Your comment about how it's difficult to imagine a superhero politician is interesting because I can think of three off the top of my head. Barbara Gordon was a U.S. congresswoman (unclear if she was in the Senate or the House) back in the 1970s. The comic _Ex Machina_ was a Wildstorm hero who became mayor of New York City. Most recently, Luke Cage became the mayor of New York City in Marvel comics. However, the effects of these examples on their fictional worlds are telling. Barbara Gordon's time in Congress was more of a political statement at the time, acknowledging that women can function in leadership roles -- and surely a superhero detective would be a good choice for that, right? It mostly moved her out of Gotham to fight crimes all over as she traveled. The hero Ex Machina is a complex case; the writer had things to say, but mileage varies as to how meaningful it was. Just because someone wants to serve the community, that's sometimes not enough to lead effectively. Luke Cage's tenure as mayor primarily served as a chance to make it clear that the Kingpin, Norman Osborn, and others like them were going to be out of the mayor's office for a few years, just giving Marvel some time to clean up the horrific mess NYC had become over years of event miniseries. So, can superheroes be politicians? They have been. Can it be done meaningfully? Eh, maybe. I can't claim it's been done yet.

I don't think you've understood the complaint about the "Great Man" paradigm. You seem to think you've overcome it by pointing out that obviously powerful and influential people exist and have existed. But no one ever suggested otherwise.

Surely this new ruling class will be inexplicably more moral by the pure strength of their ideas alone 😂😂😂😂😂😂 no structural changes to the mode of production are required 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Super-Hero Deconstructions, are often NOTHING MORE, than a mere attempt to ruin our Childhood Memories.

I understand WHY, some would like it. But I honestly hate, stories about “Super-Hero Deconstruction” that it starting to make me sick. 😣

Orwell didn't exaggerated anything at all. He described the world exactly as planned by the fabian socialists.

it's very effective. The whole point is to demonstrate that people with unchecked power rarely if ever work in favor of the people they have power over. It's not even that complex, and is very useful especially in the present day when people claim to want a "strongman" to solve all their problems. Well, that never ever works out the way one thinks it will. Unchecked power is not a good thing, and that's what shows like The Boys is all about.

It's just crude anticommunist propaganda.

I can actually think of one deconstruction super hero story that didn't need to be edgy or grim dark or cynical. And that story is Japanese super hero show Kamen Rider OOO. Now for context the Kamen Rider Franchise, has a recurring theme of the selfless hero, who safeguards everyone ease's happily ever after, at the cost of never having one of their own. OOO is a unique entry in the franchise because it deconstructs that idea and show just how toxic and self defeating such "total selflessness" can be. And the the heroes arc is him actually finding something to live for, something to fulfill himself beyond being in service of others, to find his own happiness. Because in the long run, all he will achieve by dedicating his life solely to saving others, is ensure that he won't be able to save anyone. The is a clever deconstruction of the selfless super hero, while still being an optimistic story, while still having a sense of fun and adventure, while still being a hopeful story.

easier to destroy than to create.

Deconstruction of heroes can be really interesting if they don’t just put it as some dark version of a superhero or make them straight up evil because they’re this way. Heroes can be inspiring and genuine good people, you just don’t have to make them literally perfect.

It turns out that neoliberal capitalism is as capable of creating unaccountable beaurocracy, ideological blinders, and a police state as Stalinism. OOPS

My favorite bumper sticker says FUCK BIG BROTHER.

Agreed. 1984 is viscerally more horrifying, but that's all the more reason people would rebel en masse against it. BNW is more seductive; more irresistible. Like the Matrix, you might not even realize you're inside such a thing. tavi.

Social security is sustainable with a few adjustments. And its not like we'll ever have to pay the national debt off in one big collection. National debt is not like personal debt.

I don't think you can handwave this idea that a drive for a world that maximizes pleasure while reducing suffering is "bad".. because "addiction". Addiction is bad for many reasons, but not because it causes pleasure or reduces suffering.. its actually pretty much the opposite. Most addiction leads to suffering.. at least when its called an addiction. You wouldn't generally say someone has a serious addiction to jogging, despite the fact that it causes the release of endorphins, which are endogenous opioids. If someone could be given a drug that causes the same level of euphoria as heroin without having a negative impact on their health, relationships or mental wellbeing.. I think that is not obviously bad. Whether or not you want to "think like a human". Which honestly just sounds like a call to abandon logic. And really I get the sentiment, but I think people living in comfort like to romantize the idea of what it would be like to have lived a few hundred years ago.. without thinking about the actually reality of living in those conditions.