It's very sad that someone could have a PhD in philosophy, as Gertz does, and be so bad at actually doing philosophy. I'll list 3 reasons. 1.) Gertz clearly didn't actually *read* Aristotle's views on leisure, yet he feels very comfortable criticizing him. Aristotle is crystal clear in saying that, by the word "leisure," he does NOT mean "free time" (e.g., he actually goes to great lengths to distinguish "leisure" from "relaxation"); rather, what Aristotle calls "leisure" (schole) is something like 'active and edifying activities done for their own sake.' (the opposite of Netflix and chill) /// 2.) Despite making Nietzsche the core of his talk, Gertz uses the word nihilism in such a loose-goosey way that it ends up meaning nothing. (pun not intended) /// 3.) Gertz seems to be claiming to be a nihilist (not only in his practices but also in his belief system), but the values he espouses at the end are not *at all* nihilistic. "Be responsible"? "Be introspective"? If nothing means anything, and values don't exist and never will, why should I take this advice? Gertz ends up simply sounding like a student of Socrates (which is great, I'm one too), but not at all like a Nietzschean or a nihilist.
He's actually not a nihilist nor does he claim to be, although it was somewhat confusing in the talk. In his book Nihilism and Technology, he speaks on how technology today functions under a systematic operationalization of technology. Ideologies such as posthumanism and transhumanism for example, seek to use technology to displace the responsibilities of the human, the will to power, to be introspective, responsible, and morally creative. So what he means at the end by be introspective etc, is actually to be anti-nihilist, which he sees as the founding ideology of todays technological advances. Here he is completely in agreement with Nietzsche that we should not remove the responsibilities of being human through an anti-human nihilism, through self-denial, which is what he sees technology as curating.
His writing is definitely better than this speech would have you believe. I could have definitely dealt without the virtue signaling but if he maintains a social media presence, as this speech would have me believe, than I believe he’s still seeking social acceptance. Although I do believe his work to be thought provoking and recognize that he is well educated in the work of philosophers; I believe the title of philosopher to be a bit gracious when it comes to describing Gertz.
I recently read a review of Gertz's book Nihilism and Technology by Frank Scalambrino and I think he's on to something when they wrote, "He could completely drop the term “nihilism.” Ultimately, I think the term that fits best with his project, as it stands, is “decadence.” (More on this below.) In §43 of The Will to Power, Nietzsche explained that “Nihilism is not a cause, but only the rationale of decadence.”
ok so he described the problem but didnt give any hints on how to overcome it. Unless you count "just become responcible" as a method of overcoming nihilism. I'm not even sure if nihilism was his main point or the "technology-makes us lazy" part. A nihilist can throw away his smarphone, tv and pc but we will still remain a nihilist.
I know it’s beside his main point, but I still wanna question 1:50. ”Enslaving” tech is not even in the same universe as enslaving humans. CPUs don’t experience suffering.... so, what’s his point there? And as to humanity submitting itself to a dictatorship of algorithms, maybe he has a point there, but algorithms are vastly more competent than humans.... so maybe they represent a dictatorship that actually works to our good. These aren’t mere substitutions, but actual solutions to those problems.
I love it when philosophers properly reference nihilist thought, but "true believing" nihilists get upset that their true philosophy is being misrepresented. You could say they… really value their own interpretation and value their ego. Oh snap!
Nietzsche and Marx were brought up in this, with Nietzsche as an answer against the Nihilism of, one could presume, automation. As I am currently delving into Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus, and I have moved past the introductions putting me in the first section of all the conceptualization of the machines and mechanistic processes of life, did the speaker take from Deleuze and Guattari for this presentation?
Great talk. Who wants to watch star trek ? No really. The problem he suggests is real and like a disease that caught most of us. But he failed to understand the cause of it. Which is suffering and hence lack of meaning. It could work the opposite. Lack of meaning leads to suffering. But not necessarily. You can’t escape this disease if you don’t know of a way to eliviate, don’t know how to pronounce it, your suffering. By legitimate means. Which is looking at what you are now in an honest way. Which you can’t at first. But with training, you will be able to self heal this. I did
Ironic that a self-proclaimed nihilist seems to hate Trump so much when he has nothing personally to be worried about. Of course nihilism doesn't prevent one from experiencing emotions and from having compassion for other people, but it should make you aware of how meaningless these things are, and I am a bit suspicious of anyone who seems to care much about human advancement, animal rights, social justice, the environment etc. despite calling themselves nihilists.
There was a time when Nihilistic beliefs were considered a form of mental illness. I think that in itself is kind of fascinating, as if rejecting prevalent societal delusions like religion are somehow and indication of mental instability. French sociologist Émile Durkheim in his book Suicide (1897) described nihilistic beliefs as "anomie" a derangement that he correlated to increased rates of suicide. Durkheim believed that "anomie" arises when a person asserts independent thought over wider social standards. That ignoring convention creates lack of a social ethic, which produces moral deregulation and an absence of legitimate aspirations. I would say that this can be true initially. Rejection of social norms has it's initial costs but ultimately it produces a ease and clarity with time, because there is a loss of the inherent burden of trying to legitimatize delusional beliefs. I actually think the rejection of false age old beliefs and conventions is liberating. Trying to conform to false societal expectations based on creative fiction be they religious economic or even social convention is not only exhausting but never ending. Just last night one of the coolest people I know said she sees herself as a failure because she's never achieved great success. She writes, composes music, draws, paints, her whole life is creative and she is even able to pay her bills. As far as I'm concerned that is not only success, but far more rewarding then the endless struggle for economic gain that most in our society see as the only measure of an individuals worth. I could name you dozens of incredibly cool artistic people I know who have essentially lost their identities trying to conform to social norms that they will never be able to match, and the sad thing is they feel guilty, as if this is somehow their fault, as if their inability to conform to vacuous social conventions is an indication that they are substandard humans. I think that is a travesty, but then again I do not subscribe to the religious beliefs and social conventions that dominate our culture.
Those words Netflix and chill don't mean what you think you do.
his point still holds but you're right
wew lad, look at his smirk as he says it -- it's your average TED genius' idea of a joke
He wouldn't know about that
It's very sad that someone could have a PhD in philosophy, as Gertz does, and be so bad at actually doing philosophy. I'll list 3 reasons. 1.) Gertz clearly didn't actually *read* Aristotle's views on leisure, yet he feels very comfortable criticizing him. Aristotle is crystal clear in saying that, by the word "leisure," he does NOT mean "free time" (e.g., he actually goes to great lengths to distinguish "leisure" from "relaxation"); rather, what Aristotle calls "leisure" (schole) is something like 'active and edifying activities done for their own sake.' (the opposite of Netflix and chill) /// 2.) Despite making Nietzsche the core of his talk, Gertz uses the word nihilism in such a loose-goosey way that it ends up meaning nothing. (pun not intended) /// 3.) Gertz seems to be claiming to be a nihilist (not only in his practices but also in his belief system), but the values he espouses at the end are not *at all* nihilistic. "Be responsible"? "Be introspective"? If nothing means anything, and values don't exist and never will, why should I take this advice? Gertz ends up simply sounding like a student of Socrates (which is great, I'm one too), but not at all like a Nietzschean or a nihilist.
I see.
He's actually not a nihilist nor does he claim to be, although it was somewhat confusing in the talk. In his book Nihilism and Technology, he speaks on how technology today functions under a systematic operationalization of technology. Ideologies such as posthumanism and transhumanism for example, seek to use technology to displace the responsibilities of the human, the will to power, to be introspective, responsible, and morally creative. So what he means at the end by be introspective etc, is actually to be anti-nihilist, which he sees as the founding ideology of todays technological advances. Here he is completely in agreement with Nietzsche that we should not remove the responsibilities of being human through an anti-human nihilism, through self-denial, which is what he sees technology as curating.
His writing is definitely better than this speech would have you believe.
I could have definitely dealt without the virtue signaling but if he maintains a social media presence, as this speech would have me believe, than I believe he’s still seeking social acceptance.
Although I do believe his work to be thought provoking and recognize that he is well educated in the work of philosophers; I believe the title of philosopher to be a bit gracious when it comes to describing Gertz.
I recently read a review of Gertz's book Nihilism and Technology by Frank Scalambrino and I think he's on to something when they wrote, "He could completely drop the term “nihilism.” Ultimately, I think the term that fits best with his project, as it stands, is “decadence.” (More on this below.) In §43 of The Will to Power, Nietzsche explained that “Nihilism is not a cause, but only the rationale of decadence.”
How ironic is that we watch this on youtube
I agree with most of what he said except one. Embracing Nihilism does not take away our freedom, it enhances it.
dude he was my philosphy teacher in college...
*his course was the only one I failed*
Were u looking for meaning in it
@@N1t_in not at all, was just trying to pass all my courses
@@N1t_in 🤣
Dude I have his exam tomorrow and this comment scares me....
Been watching this everyday at the dinner table. Somehow, I've never been so enraptured by a speech ever before
Me neither. Its just so captivating
All sound and fury, signifying nothing.
"Of the depressive resignation from the world by over privileged teenagers" MILLION DOLLAR STATEMENT
Just if people understood how much power is within this video maybe, change around the world would be possible.
I've been following Nolen on Twitter for a year or so, never thought he'd sound like this
Amazing talk!!!
omg I had no idea you were a Sox fan! I have now newfound respect for your work lol
And this cold universe certainly doesn't need your words in it 1337cake
ok so he described the problem but didnt give any hints on how to overcome it. Unless you count "just become responcible" as a method of overcoming nihilism. I'm not even sure if nihilism was his main point or the "technology-makes us lazy" part. A nihilist can throw away his smarphone, tv and pc but we will still remain a nihilist.
There's no "overcoming" nihilism. ..lol...and we're not depressed...this guy knows not what he is talking about
I don't know why people say they want to overcome nihilism. You can't. There's nothing to overcome
it wasn't a lesson on how to cure nihilism, go to Jordan Peterson if you want to "cure" it...
Nihilism: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
I know it’s beside his main point, but I still wanna question 1:50. ”Enslaving” tech is not even in the same universe as enslaving humans. CPUs don’t experience suffering.... so, what’s his point there? And as to humanity submitting itself to a dictatorship of algorithms, maybe he has a point there, but algorithms are vastly more competent than humans.... so maybe they represent a dictatorship that actually works to our good. These aren’t mere substitutions, but actual solutions to those problems.
Enslaving tech is not bad for the tech, its bad for us. We create systems and than rely on those, its important to think about how they are designed.
I love it when philosophers properly reference nihilist thought, but "true believing" nihilists get upset that their true philosophy is being misrepresented.
You could say they… really value their own interpretation and value their ego.
Oh snap!
arguably more of extreme 'solipsists' than nihilists
"True beliving nihilists" are an oxymoron
Weird how he is so down on central planning but says nothing about bosses and market forces controlling our lives as if that's not an issue for him.
after watching this on youtube, i just ordered his book thru amazon. I am so confused
Nietzsche and Marx were brought up in this, with Nietzsche as an answer against the Nihilism of, one could presume, automation. As I am currently delving into Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus, and I have moved past the introductions putting me in the first section of all the conceptualization of the machines and mechanistic processes of life, did the speaker take from Deleuze and Guattari for this presentation?
There we go. To be what this guy proposes I should be is impossible for me. I am too disabled. That sucks.
That's not what Netflix and chill means at all
Sorry this was just word salad, provided no guidance on how to endure the orgiastic decadence of contemporary life.
So... you need an app for that?
How can you say that you believe everything means nothing, but then try to tell us we are living a meaningless existence incorrectly?
This guy is completely obsessed with orange man
Great talk. Who wants to watch star trek ? No really. The problem he suggests is real and like a disease that caught most of us. But he failed to understand the cause of it. Which is suffering and hence lack of meaning. It could work the opposite. Lack of meaning leads to suffering. But not necessarily. You can’t escape this disease if you don’t know of a way to eliviate, don’t know how to pronounce it, your suffering. By legitimate means. Which is looking at what you are now in an honest way. Which you can’t at first. But with training, you will be able to self heal this. I did
Freezing and melting in the same time like loosers, we do
Wow, I could use this to counter my nihilism
what a waste of my time :/
Pipe so true
Not nearly enough views
TED nowadays makes me sad
Because it became bad or because the topics become more depressing? If it's the latter I agree with you.
Thivya Prasad
TEDx
This
Ironic that a self-proclaimed nihilist seems to hate Trump so much when he has nothing personally to be worried about. Of course nihilism doesn't prevent one from experiencing emotions and from having compassion for other people, but it should make you aware of how meaningless these things are, and I am a bit suspicious of anyone who seems to care much about human advancement, animal rights, social justice, the environment etc. despite calling themselves nihilists.
You don't seem to really understand nihilism mister. It's not the same as apathy.
Doomfeeder it is albeit for some people
MrOhWhatTheHeck You spoke my mind
There was a time when Nihilistic beliefs were considered a form of mental illness. I think that in itself is kind of fascinating, as if rejecting prevalent societal delusions like religion are somehow and indication of mental instability.
French sociologist Émile Durkheim in his book Suicide (1897) described nihilistic beliefs as "anomie" a derangement that he correlated to increased rates of suicide. Durkheim believed that "anomie" arises when a person asserts independent thought over wider social standards. That ignoring convention creates lack of a social ethic, which produces moral deregulation and an absence of legitimate aspirations.
I would say that this can be true initially. Rejection of social norms has it's initial costs but ultimately it produces a ease and clarity with time, because there is a loss of the inherent burden of trying to legitimatize delusional beliefs.
I actually think the rejection of false age old beliefs and conventions is liberating. Trying to conform to false societal expectations based on creative fiction be they religious economic or even social convention is not only exhausting but never ending.
Just last night one of the coolest people I know said she sees herself as a failure because she's never achieved great success. She writes, composes music, draws, paints, her whole life is creative and she is even able to pay her bills. As far as I'm concerned that is not only success, but far more rewarding then the endless struggle for economic gain that most in our society see as the only measure of an individuals worth.
I could name you dozens of incredibly cool artistic people I know who have essentially lost their identities trying to conform to social norms that they will never be able to match, and the sad thing is they feel guilty, as if this is somehow their fault, as if their inability to conform to vacuous social conventions is an indication that they are substandard humans. I think that is a travesty, but then again I do not subscribe to the religious beliefs and social conventions that dominate our culture.
@@ripvango couldn't have said it better myself
I would advise listen to lectures of Jordan Peterson.