I’ve really been enjoying your lectures. Initially i found this walk and talk concept low effort, but ive enjoyed them so far. I hope to see you succed in this content creation endevour, so we can continue to hear your insightful thoughts. I really think you have what it takes to make it in the public academic sphere. I wish for you, and your listeners, that you will continue on this path.
i have seen you alot on tiktok and all your philosophy lectures and contents ever since your first start, though i have not followed that much.. witnessing your channel and career grew is rightly honorable! and deserves a sub ... spread more wisdom and knowledge!
No great thinker is complete, in the sense that they provide all answers to all questions. They are all fragmented and often hypocrites in their own ways, but sometimes they give us one piece of brilliancy, and maybe that is enough. No need to be perfect imo...
Yeah , it is the assertion of dominating all fragmentary bits of great insights that gets, just like the rest, rolled onto being just another great insight , as in the case of various system builders . I mean that's how complete the mind can get I believe, which leads me to say providing the best possible insights to a great and visionary life is what the art of philosophical Thinking should be primarily about.
Today i was thinking about the kind of mathematicians we've had. There are two types. A mathematician that loves finding patterns, he just plays around and boom he finds a pattern, and there he discovers something new, but has been there all along unnoticed. And theres the other, a mathematician that loves finding solution, the one that loves working with his tools. He takes them everywhere like a tour map. A travelling doctor that goes everywhere with his medical kits.
Great insight Johnathan. The classic line from Shakespeares Hamlet comes to mind. "There are more things between heaven and earth than have been dreamed of in your philosophy Horatio".
I like to say the point of philosophy is to reveal creative power. To that end, I agree with you that the end product of philosophy is a great life, if you use both means towards that end. It is a half measure to fixate on either but a worthy pursuit to develop both facets of the mind, that is, the intellect and the pen.
It actually *is* the case that Augustine did not know Greek well at all. Though he took Greek lessons, Augustine hated his teacher, and in rebellion refused to learn anything from him. As strange as it is, the most important theologian in the history of Christianity in the post-Apostolic age didn't even read the Biblical texts in their original languages. There are a number of notable issues with his understanding of the New Testament because of this. But, somehow, he still comes out with a better grasp of its overall message than nearly any of his contemporaries. Regarding Augustine's reading of Plato, it would not be surprising if his understanding was largely derived from the Timaeus. This dialogue was often the exclusive means by which Plato was understood in early Christian sources, largely because of the fact that Plato sounds the most Christian in this text (though Augustine did encounter it in his pre-Christian life). In general, it is rather surprising at how little primary sources were actually read in the Roman world, and how often philosophies were derived either from secondary expositions of those systems, or from compilations of select quotes in other sources. Augustine himself would fall victim to this in the Carolingian era, where he was known almost entirely from compilations of various selections of his works (and sometimes spurious ones) from Alcuin of York and others.
If you want to become a great thinker, here is what you need to do : - learn to discern details from principles - once you find the most irreducible simple and fundamental concept in anything. start building from there. If you can find the essence of anything, you would be able to find the essence in all things And … If you can find the essence in all things. You CAN find the essence of everything ! That is how you become a sage a thinker. By learning how to think and not what to think
*correction: the claim is that Augustine didn’t even read the Timaeus in the Greek but in the Latin. His Greek was so bad (some claim) that he didn’t even read the Bible in the original. Ofc this is debated, some of my friends think his Greek was excellent and he was just being modest / others were unfairly attacking him … but regardless the point stands: THE GUY who combined Platonism with Christianity barely read any Plato (in whatever language).
As far as I know, Augustine mainly drew on Neoplatonists like Plotinus. Even if a bit dated, the French scholar Pierre Courcelle ("Lettres grecques en Occident de Macrobe à Cassiodore"/"Late Latin writers and their Greek sources") has shown clear parallels between passages from Augustine and the Enneads, some of which are also listed in the standard "Henry-Schwyzer" edition of Plotinus.
Wonderful video. I couldn't help but smile at your words towards the end - "intuition of both". Accounting for both sides and choosing a neutral position, isn't that what a scholar would do? As opposed to a Great Thinker assuming a side. Maybe I am misinterpreting your words, or perhaps am right. Ironically this is indicative of me being a scholar, than thinker :)
This video made me feel so much better today. I've been writing my PhD dissertation, which is sometimes hard and stressful. But to be reminded about what is the most important thing is just a gift! To live a good life.
Thanks Johnathan. afaik, Heidegger’s argument was that through the interpretive lens of existential phenomenology we see that the history of philosophy is a preoccupation with defining beings rather than being (existence) per se. So wouldn’t Lighter be fairer to say Heidegger does not misinterpret but rather reinterpret the tradition? My source is Thomas Sheehan Making Sense of Heidegger which I’ve been getting Chat GPT to help me summarise. Thanks.
I have been following your channel from the start. I will in the immediate future see all of the videos.Western philosophy is very insightful. Expecting more on that front. Obviously. Hopefully we will get insights on Eastern philosophy as well. Chinese and Indian philosophy at the priority.
In one sense you seem to be getting at a competition between elites that somehow shapes society. But elitism is only a late stage outcome of moments of clarity by poets and their populations. Get in the mind frame of the Greek Tragedians. To do so, ask: would you be friends with anyone in your family if they were not family? Does consent govern what's familial (meaning real love and friendship can only grow over natural separation (i.e. strangers)). With something like this mindset, even about one's closest allies and friends, Greek philosophy shaped the world. But it was more of a collective consciousness. This is why Socrates brought philosophy down from the heavens: the people were at a point that they were able to receive it. You have to believe that whole cities of people, masses, can and do play very enlightened parts, their entire lives, perhaps mostly at key points in history, that call the genius to task when it's time to make or remake society. You have to accept that only poets and prophets seem to be able to catch this in time. Your concept of the scholar is then a person of the masses, the audience, at times of great historical change.
The bad scholarship of philosophers is akin the creative misreading Harold Bloom famously found among the poets. And both contrast sharply with the scholarship of the great scientists, who are almost invariably excellent scholars. By great scientists I mean precisely those men who shifted scientific paradigms, like Darwin and Einstein. That philosophers veer toward the poets rather than the scientists indicates that they are engaged in a creative endeavor, not a process of discovery, however creative the means to such discoveries may be. Metaphysical work is inherently subjective in means and ends, unlike the objective work of the scientists. Of course, these objective scientists can be wrong while still adhering to a carefully objective process, since they face the problem of anosognosia. Kuhn has described how one objective paradigm shifts to another in the sciences. The grand instances of poetry and of philosophy constitute paradigm shifts arising from the creative, the visceral, the illogical or supralogical. If mankind feels the need to know things unknowable, such as the correct moral value system--then Nietzsche's will to the revaluation of moral values is an arguably legitimate use of philosophy, howsoever tendentious the scholarship behind his rhetoric may be. Science (at least in its ideal state) imposes upon itself the discipline to ignore any matters that rigorous scientific means cannot reach. In this way science necessarily subordinates itself to the self-aggrandizing and none-too-trustworthy philosophy wielders and makers. Two men other than those mentioned who sought to recenter philosophy around a healthy vigorous life were Nietzsche and Franz Rosenzweig. Both adopted this approach in face of very poor personal health, using their philosophical thinking in part as a form of spiritual counterattack on bodily ills.
i see your dreams, you are a very strong thinker. remeber you need to work through the classics first before you can add to it. you balance the two polar ends. it reminds me of the concept of harmony and balance. you make a solid point. isee you now jonathan Bi, you re on the right path, yoour insights are strong and valid, pls continue you have more to give the world. and write a lot of books, it will help make your ideas live longer than you
the fact that you came to a video like this and that's all you notice is telling. he gave so much information to ponder and this is the best you could come up with
@@liambeaton8318 Well, even if Greene were “the best-selling non-fiction author of all time” (which is certainly not true), that wouldn’t necessarily mean that he is a great scholar. He is not an authority on any of the authors he draws from (e.g., Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Thucydides). So no, he isn’t a great scholar.
@ He is the greatest selling nonfiction author of all time though, he surpassed Machiavelli and Nietzsche. Plus, he most certainly is an authority on the topic of Machiavelli, he’s known world wide as the “modern Machiavelli” miss me with the bullshit you’re throwing out dude.
You made a very strong point. you used conqueror and gardener. you are very smart man, a strong thinker. yes conquerors create and destroy. they expand to new territories. thinker adds more domain to what exists, the scholar maintains
Last year, I wrote a book called "Psychopolitics: The Great Comedy of Useless Idiots." Everything you're talking about might be veiwed from a psychopolitical perspective as an attempt to balance Chinese and English in your mind. There is no way for you reach perfection in both. As you improve one language, the other gets weakened. Psychopolitics has three levels: personal, national and international. Great thinkers intend to turn their language into the most powerful language of the whole system of lanuages (psychopolitics). In political realism, there are two broad currents of thought that are marked by their attitude toward the means by which states are supposed to survive. One is called “defensive realism”; the other, “offensive realism”. The first says that a state must focus on self-defense and fight exclusively defensive wars; the second advocates for conquest under favorable circumstances. Waltz and Mearsheimer are by now the two most recognizable representatives of these currents. In psychopolitics, we have an old division into dogmatists and skeptics. Dogmatists are usually defenders, and skeptics, attackers. All knowledge, as far as it is expressed in language, is personal. Defenders build metaphysical castles out of various sciences, religions, histories, myths, prophecies, etc. Attackers run around like nomads, destroying everything on their way. Two great examples are Kant and Nietzsche. However, even in these cases, there is no such thing as an absolute defender or attacker. Psychopolitics is a mortal combat between the greatest thinkers of all languages who recognized themselves in great thinkers of all languages. To survive, one has to become the greatest thinker among great thinkers. Since there is no way to know in advance who is going to become the greatest thinker of the next millennia and since one can never be sure about one’s own prospects, both attack and defense have to be used wisely. Neither cowardice nor foolhardiness pays in the long run. It’s important to understand that among the greatest thinkers, “defense” means exclusively “self-defense”. Everybody who defends another great thinker is thereby a second-rate thinker. One might defend one’s allies or teachers from rival thinkers, but it can’t be done at the expanse of one’s primary intention to become the greatest thinker oneself. One has to be mindful that in different languages the same thinkers play different roles. Lenin was an archenemy of many English thinkers throughout most of the 20th century and one of the greatest, if not the greatest Russian thinker. In the 21st century, the relation might flip. In the 22nd century, it might flip once again. Everybody who gains unprecedented power in one language usually becomes an enemy of all other languages.
Lenin was an epiphenomenon of Marx who was a vulgarization of Hegel whose philosophy is incoherent in a particularly irritating fashion. An endless series of iterations of GIGO.
Jesus was one of those great thinkers. See what he says and connect it with by paraphrasing what you said about great thinkers creating a distortion, a paradigm shift. Check out what jesus said in the book of matthew 10:34-39 I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come so that 'a son will be against his father, a daughter will be against her mother, a daughter-in-law will be against her mother-in-law. A person's enemies will be members of his own family.
Just like biggie copying pacs style album structure subject matter so well it went unnoticed Pac was a thinker an innovator Biggie was a structured scholarly Rapper few scholars understand that Eminem follows Biggies structural brilliance, skill and mastery and has inspired todays Kendrick to approach things in the same way. Giving rise to the youth rejecting skill all together without knowing its innovation and passion they crave. Thug life!
"The end product of philosophy should be a great life". The greatest philosophers often lived tortured lives. Their greatness of though often comes out of that struggle. "Jesus... was just all about living a good life... helping a political community". Respectfully, what fucking planet are you on? Jesus says to his followers: "For I have come to turn “’a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law". His own life, if the Bible is to be believe is one full of suffering, the teachings of the Bible are about how to confront the suffering of life, and his ideology was genuinely a radical one for his time.
don't bother reading this comment, it's not well thought out or cohesive. just my preliminary notes to self Great thinkers are out of the box thinkers, and artists. Their academic and interests are really just means to an end, tools to help them articulate their vision. The accuracy of representation is dispensed not as a strawman attack but rather as a rhetorical tool to support their own idea. Bruce Lee's "take what is useful and discard what is not" so essentially, yes, its a strawman technically, but thats not the point bc they could just as easily relabel their "version" of this other thinker e.g. Nietzche's version of Kant as "neo-Kantism" or "nietzchean Kantism" and then use the actual ideas within that arbitrarily named ideology or theory. could these thinkers at least label insights as "kantian inspired" instead of "this is what Kant said" sure maybe, but many great thinkers CBB with the fact they are "slandering" or "misrepresenting" augustine, who combined platonism with christianity, only read 1 dialogue from plato. I feel the same way - there are many thinkers who I can really just get a feel for how they think after reading one of their works - I can identify enough of their flaws and their good ideas to get a big picture - doesn't have to be a perfect understanding, just 80/20 rule, "orienting generalizations" - and that's enough to apply to my holistic thinking, to my creative out of the box theory "on the use and abuse of history for life" "thinker is to scholar as conqueror is to gardener" interesting analogy I don't these these are mutually exclusive - Nietzche conquered and razed first, then he began to garden and raise. Unfortunately all he could finish in his project of building was Zarathustra and snippets from the Will to Power. However, his project of conquering and destroying was almost too successful, giving the blueprint and inspirations for the postmodernists to destroy absolutely everything and everything that is absolute. in twilight of the idols, "to philosophize with a hammer" was actually analogous to striking a tuning fork, it is to reveal the true frequencies of our false idols, not to destroy for the sake of destroying. The postmodernists left in their wake a world of nihilism and narcissism. I would say even N's building project had narcissistic undertones/tendencies, but at least it was far from nihilistic and did not technically enforce narcissism as law. Anyway, the point of this is not to be a postmodern critique, that was a complete side tangent. Nietzche's project was first and foremost artistic, secondarily intellectual. His academic interests were in service to his art. He thought music was the supreme art form, but his talent was elsewhere in the realm of "white ants" and "acid" as Mishima would put it. I'm sure if he had more musical talent (which he already had plenty of) he would've chosen to be a composer and musician rather than a philosopher and writer. Regardless, he valued art so high that it was the entire fabric of his metaphysics. The reason he could resonate so far and wide was because of his attention to aesthetic, which then resonated within the souls of millions. With aesthetic as priority, pragmatism is sacrificed as a natural consequence. This is why to even try to interpret Nietzche in a purely scholarly sense is a completely wrong lens to use in the first place. So, it is not about how willing someone is to misrepresent and to destroy, but rather the artistic quality of the work that leads something to resonate. But what about a pure academic like Kant? Well, Kant is more akin to the conqueror (I don't think anyone would make the argument that he's an artist), as he trampled and overlooked many parts of reality in order to force his way into a "perfectly rational transcendental theory". I think a more nuanced analogy would be something like, the conqueror must be an architect if he doesn't wish to rule over barren land, the architect must be a conqueror if he wishes to have space for his cities, the gardener must also destroy and create within his small plot of land. I also don't think aspiring to be a great thinker is inherently perverted. It's more so that to determine your ends without knowing your own values is perverted. And who really knows themselves that well? Or, if there is an objectively "right" end, who tf knows what that is, and what their exact role in it is? So yes, focus on living right moment to moment and your dharma will naturally be reached. Then it follows that in the path of all humans following their dharma, there will naturally be projects of pure destruction on both large and small scales (conquerors and vandals), as well as projects of pure creation on both large and small scales (architects and gardeners), and anything in between. I guess in an ideal world, nobody destroys the work of another, and there is room for everyone to be a gardener or an architect if they so choose. Unfortunately, as it is right now, people will always see parts of other peoples creation as being fundamentally antagonistic to their own ideals. perhaps if the collective consciousness is really raised in a teleological manner, more and more people will realize that we have that capacity to build and create without infringing upon the life of others. Everyone has an inner conqueror, but we need to integrate that part of ourselves instead of making it our shadow - an integrated conqueror destroys their own project to create a better version - like a mandala - like the Shiva and Brahma manifestations of Brahman. I guess an integrated conqueror also fights against evil - but that's where the slippery slope begins. This is where the postmodern lens becomes so seductive - but even the postmodernists themselves are confused about what ends they should be serving, because they all end up serving some end even if they don't believe in objective ends - and usually these ends align with traditional conceptions of good, of love and acceptance. I think this is actually how we should view Nietzche - he made it very clear his vision is not meant for all of humanity, but a very specific type of soul. N is an artist, and his philosophy should be treated as art - appealing to the aesthetic tastes of some and not to that of others, and it is in no way forcing itself upon those who don't like it.
Can you give some details how and where Heidegger missread Nietzsche? You didn' t give any arguments or example, you just " think" this way. Remember also, youtubers aren' t great thinkers and schlolars either.
I’ve really been enjoying your lectures.
Initially i found this walk and talk concept low effort, but ive enjoyed them so far.
I hope to see you succed in this content creation endevour, so we can continue to hear your insightful thoughts.
I really think you have what it takes to make it in the public academic sphere. I wish for you, and your listeners, that you will continue on this path.
i have seen you alot on tiktok and all your philosophy lectures and contents ever since your first start, though i have not followed that much.. witnessing your channel and career grew is rightly honorable! and deserves a sub ... spread more wisdom and knowledge!
This is a nice format! More of this.
No great thinker is complete, in the sense that they provide all answers to all questions. They are all fragmented and often hypocrites in their own ways, but sometimes they give us one piece of brilliancy, and maybe that is enough. No need to be perfect imo...
Jesus is a great thinker and is perfect
@@brandonchin7713 frrr
Yeah , it is the assertion of dominating all fragmentary bits of great insights that gets, just like the rest, rolled onto being just another great insight , as in the case of various system builders . I mean that's how complete the mind can get I believe, which leads me to say providing the best possible insights to a great and visionary life is what the art of philosophical Thinking should be primarily about.
Love your work.
Today i was thinking about the kind of mathematicians we've had. There are two types. A mathematician that loves finding patterns, he just plays around and boom he finds a pattern, and there he discovers something new, but has been there all along unnoticed. And theres the other, a mathematician that loves finding solution, the one that loves working with his tools. He takes them everywhere like a tour map. A travelling doctor that goes everywhere with his medical kits.
Great insight Johnathan. The classic line from Shakespeares Hamlet comes to mind. "There are more things between heaven and earth than have been dreamed of in your philosophy Horatio".
Been re-reading hamlet! One of my favorites!
"It is better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war."
When forgetting, we become indifferent. This is part of the way, The Tao Te Ching
I like to say the point of philosophy is to reveal creative power. To that end, I agree with you that the end product of philosophy is a great life, if you use both means towards that end. It is a half measure to fixate on either but a worthy pursuit to develop both facets of the mind, that is, the intellect and the pen.
It actually *is* the case that Augustine did not know Greek well at all. Though he took Greek lessons, Augustine hated his teacher, and in rebellion refused to learn anything from him. As strange as it is, the most important theologian in the history of Christianity in the post-Apostolic age didn't even read the Biblical texts in their original languages. There are a number of notable issues with his understanding of the New Testament because of this. But, somehow, he still comes out with a better grasp of its overall message than nearly any of his contemporaries.
Regarding Augustine's reading of Plato, it would not be surprising if his understanding was largely derived from the Timaeus. This dialogue was often the exclusive means by which Plato was understood in early Christian sources, largely because of the fact that Plato sounds the most Christian in this text (though Augustine did encounter it in his pre-Christian life). In general, it is rather surprising at how little primary sources were actually read in the Roman world, and how often philosophies were derived either from secondary expositions of those systems, or from compilations of select quotes in other sources. Augustine himself would fall victim to this in the Carolingian era, where he was known almost entirely from compilations of various selections of his works (and sometimes spurious ones) from Alcuin of York and others.
If you want to become a great thinker, here is what you need to do :
- learn to discern details from principles
- once you find the most irreducible simple and fundamental concept in anything. start building from there.
If you can find the essence of anything, you would be able to find the essence in all things
And …
If you can find the essence in all things. You CAN find the essence of everything !
That is how you become a sage a thinker. By learning how to think and not what to think
*correction: the claim is that Augustine didn’t even read the Timaeus in the Greek but in the Latin. His Greek was so bad (some claim) that he didn’t even read the Bible in the original. Ofc this is debated, some of my friends think his Greek was excellent and he was just being modest / others were unfairly attacking him … but regardless the point stands: THE GUY who combined Platonism with Christianity barely read any Plato (in whatever language).
As far as I know, Augustine mainly drew on Neoplatonists like Plotinus. Even if a bit dated, the French scholar Pierre Courcelle ("Lettres grecques en Occident de Macrobe à Cassiodore"/"Late Latin writers and their Greek sources") has shown clear parallels between passages from Augustine and the Enneads, some of which are also listed in the standard "Henry-Schwyzer" edition of Plotinus.
Wonderful video. I couldn't help but smile at your words towards the end - "intuition of both". Accounting for both sides and choosing a neutral position, isn't that what a scholar would do? As opposed to a Great Thinker assuming a side. Maybe I am misinterpreting your words, or perhaps am right. Ironically this is indicative of me being a scholar, than thinker :)
These walk and talks are my BetterHelp.
Will keep walking and talking then
there warping in the video , jelly rolling or something else , im not sure
This video made me feel so much better today. I've been writing my PhD dissertation, which is sometimes hard and stressful. But to be reminded about what is the most important thing is just a gift! To live a good life.
Didn't Harold Bloom already build a career on this with his typology of agonistic poets?
Interesting points here. BTW you speak very well and are a good explainer of things which is a very separate talent from merely knowing your subject.
Thanks Johnathan. afaik, Heidegger’s argument was that through the interpretive lens of existential phenomenology we see that the history of philosophy is a preoccupation with defining beings rather than being (existence) per se. So wouldn’t Lighter be fairer to say Heidegger does not misinterpret but rather reinterpret the tradition?
My source is Thomas Sheehan Making Sense of Heidegger which I’ve been getting Chat GPT to help me summarise. Thanks.
Fascinating
Great insight
thanks mentor!
Also, can we say that the deeper one is into a paradigm the harder it is to think of it/things in anynother way?
Hi Jonathan, how do I attend one of your life sessions
join my email list!
I think great thinkers need to love their ideas more than they love anyone elses, while great scholars are in reverence of this who precede them
I have been following your channel from the start. I will in the immediate future see all of the videos.Western philosophy is very insightful. Expecting more on that front. Obviously. Hopefully we will get insights on Eastern philosophy as well. Chinese and Indian philosophy at the priority.
I am eager to see where you will end up as well. Scholar or philosopher with original ideas. Or a tech entrepreneur. Let's see.
Are you interested in literature? or a Novelist or at least literary critic?
In one sense you seem to be getting at a competition between elites that somehow shapes society. But elitism is only a late stage outcome of moments of clarity by poets and their populations. Get in the mind frame of the Greek Tragedians. To do so, ask: would you be friends with anyone in your family if they were not family? Does consent govern what's familial (meaning real love and friendship can only grow over natural separation (i.e. strangers)). With something like this mindset, even about one's closest allies and friends, Greek philosophy shaped the world. But it was more of a collective consciousness. This is why Socrates brought philosophy down from the heavens: the people were at a point that they were able to receive it. You have to believe that whole cities of people, masses, can and do play very enlightened parts, their entire lives, perhaps mostly at key points in history, that call the genius to task when it's time to make or remake society. You have to accept that only poets and prophets seem to be able to catch this in time. Your concept of the scholar is then a person of the masses, the audience, at times of great historical change.
The end product of philosophy is to live well.
The bad scholarship of philosophers is akin the creative misreading Harold Bloom famously found among the poets. And both contrast sharply with the scholarship of the great scientists, who are almost invariably excellent scholars. By great scientists I mean precisely those men who shifted scientific paradigms, like Darwin and Einstein. That philosophers veer toward the poets rather than the scientists indicates that they are engaged in a creative endeavor, not a process of discovery, however creative the means to such discoveries may be. Metaphysical work is inherently subjective in means and ends, unlike the objective work of the scientists. Of course, these objective scientists can be wrong while still adhering to a carefully objective process, since they face the problem of anosognosia. Kuhn has described how one objective paradigm shifts to another in the sciences. The grand instances of poetry and of philosophy constitute paradigm shifts arising from the creative, the visceral, the illogical or supralogical.
If mankind feels the need to know things unknowable, such as the correct moral value system--then Nietzsche's will to the revaluation of moral values is an arguably legitimate use of philosophy, howsoever tendentious the scholarship behind his rhetoric may be. Science (at least in its ideal state) imposes upon itself the discipline to ignore any matters that rigorous scientific means cannot reach. In this way science necessarily subordinates itself to the self-aggrandizing and none-too-trustworthy philosophy wielders and makers.
Two men other than those mentioned who sought to recenter philosophy around a healthy vigorous life were Nietzsche and Franz Rosenzweig. Both adopted this approach in face of very poor personal health, using their philosophical thinking in part as a form of spiritual counterattack on bodily ills.
i see your dreams, you are a very strong thinker. remeber you need to work through the classics first before you can add to it. you balance the two polar ends. it reminds me of the concept of harmony and balance. you make a solid point. isee you now jonathan Bi, you re on the right path, yoour insights are strong and valid, pls continue you have more to give the world. and write a lot of books, it will help make your ideas live longer than you
I think you've arrived at the right conclusion: the choice between the two will be up to extenuating circumstances and 'God's plan' for you.
brother you need some chapstick
We all do 😢
the fact that you came to a video like this and that's all you notice is telling. he gave so much information to ponder and this is the best you could come up with
Robert Greene is a great thinker, he was a great scholar… 🤔
He is neither.
Agreed lol
@@bi.johnathan best selling non fiction author of all time… “not a great scholar” smh
@@liambeaton8318 Well, even if Greene were “the best-selling non-fiction author of all time” (which is certainly not true), that wouldn’t necessarily mean that he is a great scholar. He is not an authority on any of the authors he draws from (e.g., Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Thucydides). So no, he isn’t a great scholar.
@ He is the greatest selling nonfiction author of all time though, he surpassed Machiavelli and Nietzsche. Plus, he most certainly is an authority on the topic of Machiavelli, he’s known world wide as the “modern Machiavelli” miss me with the bullshit you’re throwing out dude.
Thank you!
You made a very strong point. you used conqueror and gardener. you are very smart man, a strong thinker. yes conquerors create and destroy. they expand to new territories. thinker adds more domain to what exists, the scholar maintains
Thinkers are BS artists, scholars are the holy monks who conquer nature through patient, tireless exertion--and honesty.
Excellent points. But does Heidegger misinterpret the entire philosophical tradition before him? I would not simply take it on authority that he did.
I'm not even gonna watch the video. I'm a really bad scholar, so I'll just go ahead and thumbs up.
Opens a converse question: are good scholars great thinkers?
Thank you.
Last year, I wrote a book called "Psychopolitics: The Great Comedy of Useless Idiots." Everything you're talking about might be veiwed from a psychopolitical perspective as an attempt to balance Chinese and English in your mind. There is no way for you reach perfection in both. As you improve one language, the other gets weakened. Psychopolitics has three levels: personal, national and international. Great thinkers intend to turn their language into the most powerful language of the whole system of lanuages (psychopolitics).
In political realism, there are two broad currents of thought that are marked by their attitude toward the means by which states are supposed to survive. One is called “defensive realism”; the other, “offensive realism”. The first says that a state must focus on self-defense and fight exclusively defensive wars; the second advocates for conquest under favorable circumstances. Waltz and Mearsheimer are by now the two most recognizable representatives of these currents.
In psychopolitics, we have an old division into dogmatists and skeptics. Dogmatists are usually defenders, and skeptics, attackers. All knowledge, as far as it is expressed in language, is personal. Defenders build metaphysical castles out of various sciences, religions, histories, myths, prophecies, etc. Attackers run around like nomads, destroying everything on their way. Two great examples are Kant and Nietzsche. However, even in these cases, there is no such thing as an absolute defender or attacker. Psychopolitics is a mortal combat between the greatest thinkers of all languages who recognized themselves in great thinkers of all languages. To survive, one has to become the greatest thinker among great thinkers. Since there is no way to know in advance who is going to become the greatest thinker of the next millennia and since one can never be sure about one’s own prospects, both attack and defense have to be used wisely. Neither cowardice nor foolhardiness pays in the long run. It’s important to understand that among the greatest thinkers, “defense” means exclusively “self-defense”. Everybody who defends another great thinker is thereby a second-rate thinker. One might defend one’s allies or teachers from rival thinkers, but it can’t be done at the expanse of one’s primary intention to become the greatest thinker oneself. One has to be mindful that in different languages the same thinkers play different roles. Lenin was an archenemy of many English thinkers throughout most of the 20th century and one of the greatest, if not the greatest Russian thinker. In the 21st century, the relation might flip. In the 22nd century, it might flip once again. Everybody who gains unprecedented power in one language usually becomes an enemy of all other languages.
Lenin was an epiphenomenon of Marx who was a vulgarization of Hegel whose philosophy is incoherent in a particularly irritating fashion. An endless series of iterations of GIGO.
Thank you, Jonathan.
Scholars copy. Thinkers create.
Comprehension of the world begins with limiting information, a form of lying called omission. Explaining the world requires a devotion to the lie.
Devotees of the lie are indistinguishable from fools--and fools sooner or later get the full Darwin treatment.
Jesus was one of those great thinkers. See what he says and connect it with by paraphrasing what you said about great thinkers creating a distortion, a paradigm shift. Check out what jesus said in the book of matthew 10:34-39
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come so that 'a son will be against his father, a daughter will be against her mother, a daughter-in-law will be against her mother-in-law. A person's enemies will be members of his own family.
you no longer name your videos ? this one is titled "DJI 20250114182429 0052 D 001 v1", and the last one is "DJI 20250114182429 0052 D 001 v2"
Are other people seeing this? It doesn’t appear as such on my end?
@@bi.johnathannah its fine on my end
Who says Heidegger is a great thinker?
Me. At least he was better than you and me , and Jonathan.
@@villevanttinen908 He was merely a speculator who claimed the title of philosopher. Those who repudiate logic are not philosophers.
Sorry, the heading of this vídeo is really misfortunate and almost silly as far as philosophical thinking is in question
Engagement comment
Just like biggie copying pacs style album structure subject matter so well it went unnoticed Pac was a thinker an innovator
Biggie was a structured scholarly Rapper few scholars understand that Eminem follows Biggies structural brilliance, skill and mastery and has inspired todays Kendrick to approach things in the same way. Giving rise to the youth rejecting skill all together without knowing its innovation and passion they crave. Thug life!
The Notorious B.I.
"The end product of philosophy should be a great life". The greatest philosophers often lived tortured lives. Their greatness of though often comes out of that struggle.
"Jesus... was just all about living a good life... helping a political community". Respectfully, what fucking planet are you on? Jesus says to his followers: "For I have come to turn “’a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law". His own life, if the Bible is to be believe is one full of suffering, the teachings of the Bible are about how to confront the suffering of life, and his ideology was genuinely a radical one for his time.
why does this video look AI generated
Possibly Digital stabilization
@@PanSkrypciK really? thought it was supposed to reducing shaking and not make it look like too perfect
don't bother reading this comment, it's not well thought out or cohesive. just my preliminary notes to self
Great thinkers are out of the box thinkers, and artists. Their academic and interests are really just means to an end, tools to help them articulate their vision. The accuracy of representation is dispensed not as a strawman attack but rather as a rhetorical tool to support their own idea. Bruce Lee's "take what is useful and discard what is not"
so essentially, yes, its a strawman technically, but thats not the point bc they could just as easily relabel their "version" of this other thinker e.g. Nietzche's version of Kant as "neo-Kantism" or "nietzchean Kantism" and then use the actual ideas within that arbitrarily named ideology or theory.
could these thinkers at least label insights as "kantian inspired" instead of "this is what Kant said" sure maybe, but many great thinkers CBB with the fact they are "slandering" or "misrepresenting"
augustine, who combined platonism with christianity, only read 1 dialogue from plato. I feel the same way - there are many thinkers who I can really just get a feel for how they think after reading one of their works - I can identify enough of their flaws and their good ideas to get a big picture - doesn't have to be a perfect understanding, just 80/20 rule, "orienting generalizations" - and that's enough to apply to my holistic thinking, to my creative out of the box theory
"on the use and abuse of history for life"
"thinker is to scholar as conqueror is to gardener" interesting analogy
I don't these these are mutually exclusive - Nietzche conquered and razed first, then he began to garden and raise. Unfortunately all he could finish in his project of building was Zarathustra and snippets from the Will to Power. However, his project of conquering and destroying was almost too successful, giving the blueprint and inspirations for the postmodernists to destroy absolutely everything and everything that is absolute. in twilight of the idols, "to philosophize with a hammer" was actually analogous to striking a tuning fork, it is to reveal the true frequencies of our false idols, not to destroy for the sake of destroying. The postmodernists left in their wake a world of nihilism and narcissism. I would say even N's building project had narcissistic undertones/tendencies, but at least it was far from nihilistic and did not technically enforce narcissism as law. Anyway, the point of this is not to be a postmodern critique, that was a complete side tangent.
Nietzche's project was first and foremost artistic, secondarily intellectual. His academic interests were in service to his art. He thought music was the supreme art form, but his talent was elsewhere in the realm of "white ants" and "acid" as Mishima would put it. I'm sure if he had more musical talent (which he already had plenty of) he would've chosen to be a composer and musician rather than a philosopher and writer. Regardless, he valued art so high that it was the entire fabric of his metaphysics. The reason he could resonate so far and wide was because of his attention to aesthetic, which then resonated within the souls of millions. With aesthetic as priority, pragmatism is sacrificed as a natural consequence. This is why to even try to interpret Nietzche in a purely scholarly sense is a completely wrong lens to use in the first place.
So, it is not about how willing someone is to misrepresent and to destroy, but rather the artistic quality of the work that leads something to resonate. But what about a pure academic like Kant? Well, Kant is more akin to the conqueror (I don't think anyone would make the argument that he's an artist), as he trampled and overlooked many parts of reality in order to force his way into a "perfectly rational transcendental theory".
I think a more nuanced analogy would be something like, the conqueror must be an architect if he doesn't wish to rule over barren land, the architect must be a conqueror if he wishes to have space for his cities, the gardener must also destroy and create within his small plot of land.
I also don't think aspiring to be a great thinker is inherently perverted. It's more so that to determine your ends without knowing your own values is perverted. And who really knows themselves that well? Or, if there is an objectively "right" end, who tf knows what that is, and what their exact role in it is? So yes, focus on living right moment to moment and your dharma will naturally be reached.
Then it follows that in the path of all humans following their dharma, there will naturally be projects of pure destruction on both large and small scales (conquerors and vandals), as well as projects of pure creation on both large and small scales (architects and gardeners), and anything in between. I guess in an ideal world, nobody destroys the work of another, and there is room for everyone to be a gardener or an architect if they so choose. Unfortunately, as it is right now, people will always see parts of other peoples creation as being fundamentally antagonistic to their own ideals. perhaps if the collective consciousness is really raised in a teleological manner, more and more people will realize that we have that capacity to build and create without infringing upon the life of others. Everyone has an inner conqueror, but we need to integrate that part of ourselves instead of making it our shadow - an integrated conqueror destroys their own project to create a better version - like a mandala - like the Shiva and Brahma manifestations of Brahman. I guess an integrated conqueror also fights against evil - but that's where the slippery slope begins. This is where the postmodern lens becomes so seductive - but even the postmodernists themselves are confused about what ends they should be serving, because they all end up serving some end even if they don't believe in objective ends - and usually these ends align with traditional conceptions of good, of love and acceptance.
I think this is actually how we should view Nietzche - he made it very clear his vision is not meant for all of humanity, but a very specific type of soul. N is an artist, and his philosophy should be treated as art - appealing to the aesthetic tastes of some and not to that of others, and it is in no way forcing itself upon those who don't like it.
Heidegger makes the very point that scholarship is not thinking and thinking itself is more appropriate for poets😊
Can you give some details how and where Heidegger missread Nietzsche? You didn' t give any arguments or example, you just " think" this way. Remember also, youtubers aren' t great thinkers and schlolars either.
Not the first comment
Please delete your channel post haste