I can't believe I just found your channel. I've been searching for easy to understand, yet deep, philosophy arguments and explanation. I binge watched your videos and plan to watch them again. Thank you for producing such wonderful content!
I personally have had no problem with the concept of suicide since I was 18 and saw the absurdity of people "trying" to be happy and failing... I'm now 73 and one thing that keeps me from committing suicide is the idea, or fact, that no matter what happened today that was utterly ABSURD... Tomorrow, something even MORE ABSURD is going to happen and I want to see what it is and know it's going to make me laugh... at some point in the future, I do expect the quality of life to degrade and my thrill with daily absurdities to decline... at that point I'll probably take the easy way out... my father passed at 91 and the last 10-15 years of his life was hell... that was absurd... and I never asked him his reasoning... it was probably absurd also...
Your channel is a one of a kind. I don't think I've ever had a channel change my way of thinking and hit the core of what how to view life as your channel did. Unlike other channels, that try to convey what philosophers said in their own recital ways, you deliver exactly what is needed, clear and straight. Conveying information in the most digestible way, instead of a mesmerizing way, if that makes any sense. Every second of your videos are crucial to the whole video and filled with information.
What a great video. Thank you. I’m going to watch it at least two more times for further thought. If you would, please, could you elaborate more on the falling out he and Sartre had? Camus admits to the absurd and meaningless yet adhered to morals and ethics, as you said. Sartre comes out and says these are man-made and not real, but ok for you to make/have them. Life is for you to make, basically. Doesn’t Camus do the same thing w his morals and ethics? Why the big falling out be these two, practically and functionally speaking they are the same, although ascribe different names and details to their thoughts. Maybe I’m misunderstanding, can you help me out? Again, thoughtful and well-done video.
How do YOU define "famous" or "philosophy"... too funny in that this video say you can live your life anyway you desire and define your own meanings and values... and then you challenge Camus... what have you written lately that might even be considered worth reading, let alone being published and taught in college courses?...🤔 Philosophy is a systematic study of general and fundamental questions concerning topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, mind, and language. It is a rational and critical inquiry that reflect… = Camus...😉
I studyied in the 80's philosophical idealism; however the problem of existential evil was of nagging importance; my experience is that M.Scott Peck is unfortunately right as well as ancient Jewish apocalyptic belief system; that the choice between good and evil is a choice that must be made is life - it must be made and is quite defining in terms of who you are: think of Oskar Schindler and Lincoln as successfully meeting the challenges and Napoleon and Joseph Stalin as failing on a personal levels. Camus himself had the choice to collaborate or resist in WW2 or perhaps do nothing; his example is an explanation in itself. We all must choose. Nietzsche rejected Ricard Wagners's anti-semitism ; he did choose on a personal level.
Would be great if you had a decent microphone, maybe a lavalier/ lapel for your videos. Some can connect directly to your cellphone/ camera. Unfortunately this video sounds a bit "tingy" but I'll listen nonetheless! 😊 Thank you for this content!
What is meaning? Is meaning tied to consciousness or words? In philosophy in general there are two basic modes of ontology: coherentism and foundationalism. Coherentism is consistency of theory. Foundationalism is consistency of Nature. You put your hand on a hot stove and it burns, every time; this is foundationalism. You put your trust in Bernie Madoff, the Ponzi scheme stock market investor, you lose, every time; this is coherentism. The fundamental question of Camus' philosophy isn't suicide it is murder. He tells you that in "The Stranger". Camus justifies murder in his philosophy. Not self-defense murder, not death penalty murder, but senseless, meaningless murder. What is there in Camus' philosophy to prevent criminal behavior? To prevent murdering millions in the name of the purity of Communist ideals? To prevent enacting a Ponzi scheme to enrich yourself? Was Camus saying go gamble with your life, or was he saying go gamble in the stock market, in the casino, in love? There is a difference between gambling on things with no rules and gambling on things with rules. Where did Camus' philosophy come down on this act? Camus didn't understand the divide between the linguistic mind and consciousness, between pretext and context. He tried to sell a philosophy claiming to overcome pretext by a pretext - Absurdism. Trying to overcome coherentism with an incoherent philosophy. Life isn't just pretextual. It is also contextual. You cannot overcome, eating, sleeping, breathing or being burned by fire. You can overcome ignorance, some ignorance not all. You can tell when someone's lying to you by the basic principle of coherentism: the principle of non-contradiction. Most of the time, though, you can't tell if a "stranger" is lying to you. You have to discover a lie. Most people know you cannot overcome a context by a pretext, you cannot fly by putting on a cape. How many know you cannot overcome a pretext by a pretext? A lie by another lie? A Ponzi scheme of lies? Ben, without an absolute lesson from Camus on how his philosophy prevents this, how his philosophy prevents the justification of crimes, then Camus should be put away with all the other con men. Does anyone need Camus' philosophy to take a day off from his job by telling a lie that he is sick?
Camus states in The Myth of Sisyphus, “The absurd does not liberate; it binds. It does not authorize all actions. ‘Everything is permitted’ does not mean that nothing is forbidden. The absurd merely confers an equivalence on the consequences of those actions. It does not recommend crime, for this would be childish, but it restores to remorse its futility.” (p.67)
@@yourfrienddanni it "restores" to remorse futility? How, when remorse is meaningless due to the meaninglessness of religios morality? You cannot reject religion as meaningless and then cling to guilt or "remorse" over breaking the pretexts of God's commandments. How illogical. You cannot see how illogical your arguments are, neither could Camus. Please do not attempt to convince anyone about Absurdism based on reason. His philosophy is an attitude, a fey attitude. Only as contextual as a joke and just as sober. Your pretext about remorse is just an excuse. An excuse you're not intellectually honest about. An excuse the founders used to give slaves 2/3rd's of a vote. An excuse the Supreme Court used to ratify same sex marriage. Don't pretend Camus is logical. You're Absurdism is showing.
@@kallianpublico7517 Yes I understand where you’re coming from. I like absurdism as a life philosophy not as fact, I was just quoting Camus himself as an answer to your comment, no need to get angry :). Morals are not only tied to religion. They are applied in many different ways, Camus is considered an existentialist philosopher - so his life’s meaning / values are crafted by his own thoughts and not dependent upon a traditional way of thinking. My personal opinion is just that I don’t think it’s immoral to have an independent justification of what life means. I like what you have to say about his philosophy being an attitude, as it is exactly that. Living in the absurd is arguably a mindset for people to live by and cope with, rather than resorting to pessimistic nihilism. I’m sorry to have upset you, agree to disagree?
@@yourfrienddanni My anger is that the word hasn't gotten out about the dichotomy of consciousness. Anyone who understands this dichotomy can see existentialism for what it is. Can see through the arguments. Unfortunately without this insight everyone arguing for existentialism ends up eating their own tail. Logic has two signposts of warning ⚠️, contradiction and tautology. Unfortunately tautology is harder to dispel than Roe vs. Wade.
i just watched 8 of your videos about nihilism, but I cannot continue this video past the introduction. I cannot take anyone seriously who respects Dr. Peterson's opinions or anyone who looks at that monster favorably. Bro wrote a self help book and used that clout to be one of the most prolific transphobes of our century. I don't even know your full opinion on the matter but the fact that he was brought up without a nuance to it is a huge red flag. When philosophy circles i interact with bring him up i take that as my clue to leave.
If this video was interested or helped you in any way please like it and leave a comment.
If you want more videos like this please let me know below.
I can't believe I just found your channel. I've been searching for easy to understand, yet deep, philosophy arguments and explanation. I binge watched your videos and plan to watch them again. Thank you for producing such wonderful content!
Comment added to appease the Algo Gods. Plus, you are correct. It is good content.
Please make more of those videos! Absurdism rocks 🪨
Best wishes,
Max
I personally have had no problem with the concept of suicide since I was 18 and saw the absurdity of people "trying" to be happy and failing... I'm now 73 and one thing that keeps me from committing suicide is the idea, or fact, that no matter what happened today that was utterly ABSURD... Tomorrow, something even MORE ABSURD is going to happen and I want to see what it is and know it's going to make me laugh... at some point in the future, I do expect the quality of life to degrade and my thrill with daily absurdities to decline... at that point I'll probably take the easy way out... my father passed at 91 and the last 10-15 years of his life was hell... that was absurd... and I never asked him his reasoning... it was probably absurd also...
Great video. The quick links are super. I rate your zoom background 10/10.
Your channel is a one of a kind.
I don't think I've ever had a channel change my way of thinking and hit the core of what how to view life as your channel did.
Unlike other channels, that try to convey what philosophers said in their own recital ways, you deliver exactly what is needed, clear and straight. Conveying information in the most digestible way, instead of a mesmerizing way, if that makes any sense.
Every second of your videos are crucial to the whole video and filled with information.
Great video! Love the absurdism series.
Helpful. Keep doing the good. Work.
Excellent video. Hopefully, in the future, you can update with pictures or cartoons.
forgot i was subscribed to your channel. glad i've been reacquainted
Thank you for this! Love Camus and your channel.
Philosophy superior to psychology love it
What a great video. Thank you. I’m going to watch it at least two more times for further thought. If you would, please, could you elaborate more on the falling out he and Sartre had? Camus admits to the absurd and meaningless yet adhered to morals and ethics, as you said. Sartre comes out and says these are man-made and not real, but ok for you to make/have them. Life is for you to make, basically. Doesn’t Camus do the same thing w his morals and ethics? Why the big falling out be these two, practically and functionally speaking they are the same, although ascribe different names and details to their thoughts. Maybe I’m misunderstanding, can you help me out? Again, thoughtful and well-done video.
Camus isn't a famous philosopher, but I think his absurdism holds up better than competing versions of existentialism.
How do YOU define "famous" or "philosophy"... too funny in that this video say you can live your life anyway you desire and define your own meanings and values... and then you challenge Camus... what have you written lately that might even be considered worth reading, let alone being published and taught in college courses?...🤔
Philosophy is a systematic study of general and fundamental questions concerning topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, mind, and language. It is a rational and critical inquiry that reflect… = Camus...😉
Why do so many people readily dismiss absurdism. It makes logical sense, it inspires the hopeless and lost, yet, I feel like it's barely acknowledged
I studyied in the 80's philosophical idealism; however the problem of existential evil was of nagging importance; my experience is that M.Scott Peck is unfortunately right as well as ancient Jewish apocalyptic belief system; that the choice between good and evil is a choice that must be made is life - it must be made and is quite defining in terms of who you are: think of Oskar Schindler and Lincoln as successfully meeting the challenges and Napoleon and Joseph Stalin as failing on a personal levels. Camus himself had the choice to collaborate or resist in WW2 or perhaps do nothing; his example is an explanation in itself. We all must choose. Nietzsche rejected Ricard Wagners's anti-semitism ; he did choose on a personal level.
Would be great if you had a decent microphone, maybe a lavalier/ lapel for your videos. Some can connect directly to your cellphone/ camera. Unfortunately this video sounds a bit "tingy" but I'll listen nonetheless! 😊 Thank you for this content!
Listened. Brilliant!! You've helped me to a degree that might be very hard to appreciate right now. Ben, you're a "God-send" ! :P
An absurd life is a happy life ...
Ben, do you believe in absurdism?
What is meaning? Is meaning tied to consciousness or words?
In philosophy in general there are two basic modes of ontology: coherentism and foundationalism.
Coherentism is consistency of theory. Foundationalism is consistency of Nature.
You put your hand on a hot stove and it burns, every time; this is foundationalism. You put your trust in Bernie Madoff, the Ponzi scheme stock market investor, you lose, every time; this is coherentism.
The fundamental question of Camus' philosophy isn't suicide it is murder. He tells you that in "The Stranger". Camus justifies murder in his philosophy. Not self-defense murder, not death penalty murder, but senseless, meaningless murder.
What is there in Camus' philosophy to prevent criminal behavior? To prevent murdering millions in the name of the purity of Communist ideals? To prevent enacting a Ponzi scheme to enrich yourself?
Was Camus saying go gamble with your life, or was he saying go gamble in the stock market, in the casino, in love? There is a difference between gambling on things with no rules and gambling on things with rules. Where did Camus' philosophy come down on this act?
Camus didn't understand the divide between the linguistic mind and consciousness, between pretext and context. He tried to sell a philosophy claiming to overcome pretext by a pretext - Absurdism. Trying to overcome coherentism with an incoherent philosophy.
Life isn't just pretextual. It is also contextual. You cannot overcome, eating, sleeping, breathing or being burned by fire. You can overcome ignorance, some ignorance not all. You can tell when someone's lying to you by the basic principle of coherentism: the principle of non-contradiction. Most of the time, though, you can't tell if a "stranger" is lying to you. You have to discover a lie.
Most people know you cannot overcome a context by a pretext, you cannot fly by putting on a cape. How many know you cannot overcome a pretext by a pretext? A lie by another lie? A Ponzi scheme of lies?
Ben, without an absolute lesson from Camus on how his philosophy prevents this, how his philosophy prevents the justification of crimes, then Camus should be put away with all the other con men.
Does anyone need Camus' philosophy to take a day off from his job by telling a lie that he is sick?
Camus states in The Myth of Sisyphus, “The absurd does not liberate; it binds. It does not authorize all actions. ‘Everything is permitted’ does not mean that nothing is forbidden. The absurd merely confers an equivalence on the consequences of those actions. It does not recommend crime, for this would be childish, but it restores to remorse its futility.” (p.67)
@@yourfrienddanni it "restores" to remorse futility? How, when remorse is meaningless due to the meaninglessness of religios morality? You cannot reject religion as meaningless and then cling to guilt or "remorse" over breaking the pretexts of God's commandments. How illogical.
You cannot see how illogical your arguments are, neither could Camus. Please do not attempt to convince anyone about Absurdism based on reason. His philosophy is an attitude, a fey attitude. Only as contextual as a joke and just as sober.
Your pretext about remorse is just an excuse. An excuse you're not intellectually honest about. An excuse the founders used to give slaves 2/3rd's of a vote. An excuse the Supreme Court used to ratify same sex marriage.
Don't pretend Camus is logical. You're Absurdism is showing.
@@kallianpublico7517 Yes I understand where you’re coming from. I like absurdism as a life philosophy not as fact, I was just quoting Camus himself as an answer to your comment, no need to get angry :). Morals are not only tied to religion. They are applied in many different ways, Camus is considered an existentialist philosopher - so his life’s meaning / values are crafted by his own thoughts and not dependent upon a traditional way of thinking. My personal opinion is just that I don’t think it’s immoral to have an independent justification of what life means. I like what you have to say about his philosophy being an attitude, as it is exactly that. Living in the absurd is arguably a mindset for people to live by and cope with, rather than resorting to pessimistic nihilism. I’m sorry to have upset you, agree to disagree?
@@yourfrienddanni My anger is that the word hasn't gotten out about the dichotomy of consciousness. Anyone who understands this dichotomy can see existentialism for what it is. Can see through the arguments. Unfortunately without this insight everyone arguing for existentialism ends up eating their own tail. Logic has two signposts of warning ⚠️, contradiction and tautology. Unfortunately tautology is harder to dispel than Roe vs. Wade.
@@thotslayer9914 What's the difference between the three?
Don't you think it's somewhat similar to zen philosophy.? Being in the present.
❤️ *promo sm*
👏.🙂
👍😄
i just watched 8 of your videos about nihilism, but I cannot continue this video past the introduction. I cannot take anyone seriously who respects Dr. Peterson's opinions or anyone who looks at that monster favorably. Bro wrote a self help book and used that clout to be one of the most prolific transphobes of our century. I don't even know your full opinion on the matter but the fact that he was brought up without a nuance to it is a huge red flag. When philosophy circles i interact with bring him up i take that as my clue to leave.
I respect everyone 🖖