วีดีโอ

Thank you!

@@AnEruditeAdventure I'm not too picky about what sporting event it is! I do like to see America win medals though if possible but I think in many ways I prefer the spectacle of the Winter Olympics.

@@UniqueArtsCostcoPicasso I do love the winter Olympics. The only time I’ve stayed up too late watching sports was the Woman’s Gold Medal hockey game between US and Canada back in 2018. 🤣

Proud of you

@@LiamsLyceum I knew it wasn't the first Elric although I was not sure where it fell in the chronology but it wasn't bad and I wouldn't mind reading more.

@@LiamsLyceum it's weird because I actually do really enjoy the story and I feel like it's so close to being perfect but that he just gave too much for what could have been in the background. So, maybe the second trilogy can be better if he stops that, but I don't know that might just be his style. Also, this is just my opinion

@@UniqueArtsCostcoPicassoidk about style, it certainly is for this series but Butler writes in a different style for each series/book which is one of his talents imo

The point of the story is that an honest nihilist/atheist like Ivan could find no peace in a world full of pain like this one. Ivan represents all of Dostoyevsky's doubts and fears, he is not some "bad guy", whatever Ivan thinks was thought by Dosotyevsky too and is an honest attempt at steelmanning basically the Devil. That's why Ivan is usually the favourite character of most readers. At the end Ivan's future is uncertain and he is presented as a noble character, he goes mad but the woman he loves takes care of him and we do not know if he will wake up, and if he does what his attitude will be. Dostoyevsky does not judge. Also at the end of the Idiot the main character, who is the perfect Christian Prince, ends up exactly like Ivan so you are wrong again. And Dimitri doesn't go to prison, the point is that he is totally innocent and that truth is a complex thing, that "scientific" obvious facts can lead to an innocent man like Dimitri to be convicted. Yet we are told he will be freed and will go to America with his lover. The point of the children is that they represent the future of Russia, the youth. Captured by nihilism and communism, faced with a world full of pain and suffering they are given no alternative. Aliosha is young and lost too hoping for a literal miracle to give sense to his life. Dostoyevsky gives us an answer for how to live, active love the example of Jesus Christ. He does not tell us the rest of Aliosha's life he is free to make his own decisions but we are told the principles by which he will live. Dostoyevsky believes in God, he believes Jesus is the Truth, why would he lie and not tell you what he thinks life is about. The wisdom of men is foolishness compared to the Wisdom of God, Dostoyevsky is an Orthodox Chrisitan, a tradition full of mystics and holy fools that treat human knowledge as inferior to the simple spiritual life. Dostoyevsky would laugh at your pretentious ramblings. The answer is love.

@@jimcrow2802 Amen!

That version is similar to the one I read in that they're both based off of the courtly chivalric manuscript of Thomas of Britain. Gottfried wrote his in the middle ages into German but even then the Thomas manuscript was incomplete so he added to it which may or may not be faithful to what was missing. I read the one by Bedier which was done about 1900 and is supposed to be an attempt to reconstruct the Thomas manuscript as well based on all of the previous versions around. I haven't read the one by Gottfried to compare them though! I think that the story is generally enjoyable although there are moments where I'm like man these people are fools but happens.

@@Coco-mp9jg Haha thanks

Glad to hear it at least! I have been seeing your Top 100 books of all time videos going live, I was kind of planning on bingeing it later on so you'll have to forgive me for now!

@@UniqueArtsCostcoPicasso ooh! I’ll be sure to keep up with those once you start.

Thanks for the comment. I was largely trying to express what I think Newman would say, although I tend to agree with him here. We are similar to other animals because we are animals! Art is what separates us, per Newman, and although it could be argued that Animals can attempt art as well, perhaps as the example you mentioned of howling at the moon, I think Newman would still separate us from them because it's hard to argue that that they do much beyond biological necessity and when they do, it comes after the necessity is met. Newman would argue that it's the opposite for humans, making us different from all other animals. That is: we desire and pursue the creative before we think of mere survival. The urge to create and imitate the divine is innately human and is the driving force for our endeavors. Hence why he would say we would build an altar(art) before we proceed to the hunt(animal needs). Specifically pertaining to language, perhaps I wasn't clear but he was saying that language is essentially an animal capability in that it doesn't separate us from them. The human in language is literature and of course he would argue that we're the only animals that make literature.

I've never heard his name pronounced. But I suppose I could've looked it up. Looks like it MAWM essentially?

That's why I corrected myself with the text for a second there in the video you numpty but yes I'm a poser

@@UniqueArtsCostcoPicassooh lol this is what I get for listening in the car

@@LiamsLyceum I just felt like calling someone a numpty today and I couldn't use it on my kids cause they wouldn't understand. You should feel honored really

Cut off was 12, smh. Nah, of course you can if you want to

Return of the King might be my favorite part of the book. As great as the journey is, I love endings. And seeing why those journeys were necessary. -T

And yet this is the reality for most places and peoples

@@UniqueArtsCostcoPicasso This is not reality for the IMT lnternational Marxist Tendency.

Which is weird, because He put the serpent in the garden in the first place.

@@williamchamberlain2263 Oh wow such a smart response William: Will-I AM meaning: It derives from the Germanic Wilhelm, whose roots wil (“Will, Desire”) and helm (“Helmet , Protection”) combine to mean “Resolute Protector”-a bold meaning that will mark baby out as a defender of the vulnerable. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Ephesians 6:17 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Exodus 3:14‭ So Esther's maids and her chamberlains came and told it her. Then was the queen exceedingly grieved; and she sent raiment to clothe Mordecai, and to take away his sackcloth from him: but he received it not. Esther 4:4 No Serpent, No Freewill sherlock.

This is not true. This is a postmodern contemporary idea of the two words. Nationalism is more along the lines of thinking of your country first and its interest over other nations. The thing you described as nationalism is often called hyper-nationalism as it's only bad when taken to the extreme like thinking the nation has to be some distorted version the party says it has to be. This is not exclusive to fascist but can also be found with socialist as well. Both are often equally destructive. Patriotism is generally more broad as you stated as it isn't just the interest of that nation over other nations but does consider the interest of the people, generally quite variegated as well. One can be both and not be an oxymoron for example: I want jobs to not go overseas but stay in America. The nationalist in me will think this way because I want the economic benefit to go to my country and not some other foreign power. The patriot in me will think of the people it will be helping through jobs and employment opportunities. I've covered this in other videos before but Nationalism is not a bad thing. Consider first who is telling you it's bad and what they seek to gain from you by distorting your idea of supporting a nation being reductive. Nations are founded on shared ideas and principles if not history. Diversity is not going to unite you when the going gets tough, it's what you have in common, like all being Spaniards in this case. Loving Spain and wanting what is best for her as a Nation and also wanting what is best for the people and separate cultures are not mutually exclusive. So, loving your country often comes from a sense of nationalism and patriotism.

Nope. Again, you are defining Patriotism. which at first seems very similar, but it's completely different. Your idea of nationalism is a revisioned post-modern version designed to whitewash nationalism. This attempt to confuse Nationalism with Patriotism not casual. It's the reason why lately many radical right-wing politicians use it to mask their authoritarian views as ¨love for the country¨. it's the reason why fascism is rising again among very uneducated people. Nationalism started in the xix century, and because of it, France went from the ¨revolution of the people¨ to Napoleon attempting to conquer all of Europe. It's also the reason the most savage imperialism started at that time. Nationalism was used to justify anything, including the holocaust. Nazis are a result of Nationalism. because for a Nationalist, one's country over the others. it always leads to discrimination, xenophobia, racism and fascism. ALWAYS. Nationalism is about creating an abstract idea of what a country should be often using one historical reference to mimic and base its entire ideology on that. and tries to make their people adapt themselves to that one stereotype. Anyone that is not ¨what an American should be¨ ends up being discriminated or even murdered. Patriotism is love and honest pride for one's country as it is, with its diversity, all its history and different costumes. it doesn't form one simple and reductive idea of ¨what an American should be¨ but instead recognizes all the things an American is and adapts the country to its people, instead of forcing the people to represent an abstract and manufactured idea ( I say American as an example, it's applicable for any nationality obviously) @@UniqueArtsCostcoPicasso

@@MarioLanzas. This simply isn't true. The Nazis were nationalist but so were the British, French, Spanish, Italians, and so forth. Nationalism does not inherently lead to evil. You have been lied to and I would advise you stop trying to spread that lie. You seem to think it is tied to fascism explicitly yet the Russians were nationalist and committed similar horrible atrocities. Perhaps the root here is you think things like Socialism are noble? All of these extreme ideologies, communism and fascism included, corrupt nationalism which is not inherently evil. Lying is inherently evil though so I hope you are simply misinformed. Most of the media today spouts what you are saying but it is false. Patriotism has perhaps not been the justification for atrocities like nationalism has been but as I've explained they generally coincide with each other. And again, nationalism is not inherently conforming the populace to one stereotype. There can be diversity in America, or elsewhere, and yet all of those diverse groups can still support the nation and its interest. Caring for the interest of a nation does not mean nazism and you are uncharitably equating the two. Refrain from these discussions if you refuse to acknowledge reality. The people in the media, on TH-cam, and most elsewhere will sell you this Marxist understanding but it is not grounded in reality and should be discarded.

I, unfortunately, have hardly read any of the works about Sherlock Holmes despite how well-known he is. Thank you for the recommendation, I will have to add it to my list!

I haven't read it yet but it seems likely it should be on such a list!