Hello there, Stephen! I see that sometimes you read the comments so I'll take a shot. I'd just like to thank you and encourage you at the same time. What you do is more precious than the "One Ring" for Sméagol. I'm a relatively young guy from Hungary, who barely speaks English, but understand it well enough. The first book in my hand (in philosophy topic) was A History of Western Philosophy from Bertrand Russel. And I sweated blood by the time i finished. But you are presenting philosophy in such a unique way, that I fell in love with it even more than I have ever been before. By now, I spent more time listening to you ( I mean actually listening) than I ever spent on any person through my life. And I feel like I learned more from you than from any of them. I'd just like to Thank you once again and I'm looking forward for the first podcast about Your Philosophy. I think that would wort to be Philosophized too. BR
Love these podcasts, currently re-reading Plato with your voice in my mind :) pretty crazy ... Another crazy experience I had during Christmas time. Went to the shopping mall, last minute gift shopping. During that I was listening to the German school #7 on media , let me tell you. I left my shopping , set on the bench in the middle of the mall, listening to the podcast, and watching people’s behaviour. It was something else.
Great show Stephen - loved the reference to Levi Strauss in Brazil - but didn’t Malinowski do the same thing earlier in the Pacific?… many thanks for so many fantastic and engaging episodes🙏🙏
The binary perspective mentioned here (up-down, clean-dirty, sane-insane) helped me remember about one of M. Foucault's ideas: there is no rational without the irrational, we can't define it without its opposition; therefore, for the rational part to exist, the existence of an irrational one is needed. Simplified, light is defined by the lack of darkness.
I may be missing the deeper point but what is so special about Barthes analysis of, for example, the black solider saluting the French flag, that we can't just simply call it 'propaganda'? What does the idea of semiotics and deep structure add to our understanding of what is going on that the notion of propaganda doesn't already encompass?
The people making the surfer dude's clothes for cheap labor rates only does so because it's better than the alternative which may not pay enough to sustain life. To engage in commerce by making clothes for cheap rates allows them to enter, albeit, at the bottom of a system that leads to prosperity. To try and force higher labor rates takes away this person's or this country's competitive advantage which would exclude them from the process and may send them back to a life of hunger. Plenty of myth weaving against capitalism too..
i wonder if podcast type bubbles can function as gods and mythologies.. you can spend time listening to certain podcasts and they often have one or two people decreeing values and selecting how to describe the world.. its weird to me how listening to a person for 6 hours a day is almost like them doing the verbal thinking for you.. it feels like a temporary blood transfusion for your brain, if i listen to Joe Rogan all day I feel like bullying ppl a little more and trying to be macho and cool.. if i listen to this i think more and contemplate the world and feel more peaceful.. the good ones seem to each have their own distinct "vibe" or flavor.. but its weird how you have this one way communication where they're the authority telling you how things cause you cant really talk back.. but you're willingly following them and they dont even know you but they might play a big role in your thoughts or life for a while.. its a weird new internet world.. Choose your god and mythology! for a while, then get bored and choose another :D they really affect my behavior.. maybe i just need to get out and socialize more.. Even real people sort of set a paradigm/mythology that you can start to believe.. if you dont like their mythology should you stay away from them, or try to refute them? How mythologies work is weird.. like a black kid in the 1950s blissfully unaware of racism till they learn "the N word" a mythology of negative black stereotypes.. or a nerdy kid having fun playing D&D.. until one day he learns the mythology of "nerd" and what is cool and what is not.. they can get infected, now there's this story that might shape their behavior and have them chasing things they dont even like, but its kind of a BS mythology... they were probably happier when they were blissfully unaware of other people's mythology.. so weird.. but maybe now with internet bubbles people can more and more kinda choose their own mythologies and gods/influencers.. or try to start their own :)
Those phenomena are in no way at the mythological level. The myth is not the tales we tale to keep the social structure, that needs no tales as keeping is needed for survival. If it where about social cohesion, why is it always about an individual? Where's the greek-folk myth?. The myth is a symbolic representation of existence at the deepest level. That is why different societies all over the world, with different cultures, share mythological structures between each other.
I was thinking the same. When we study comparative mythology, the convergence is amazing. Similarly, in metaphysics, almost all mystic traditions describe same experience of the truth. I think structuralism should be seen more on the dangers of artificial myths that stand in the way of real truth of our existence.
Here I’ll give you a false dichotomy: Capitalism vs Socialism We actual have a Chartal Monetary System (Chartalism), check it out. Start with A Mitchell Innes, What Is Money, then read Warren Mosler and L Randall Wray
The more science and knowledge is disseminated the less myth and culture are needed, especially those parts of myth and culture that use negative means of persuasion. Perhaps, as the brain applies calculus to slices of (usually) slowly changing reality from moment to moment, culture is padding out what's there with additional slices, like infill that fleshes out reality. This is where influence comes in. There's a lot of repetition out there and understanding acts like a linkage device that combines and simplifies...the calculus that produces identity or fixed, but not necessarily static, ideas. Binary oppositions are both tools for understanding and a mechanism for moving forward in the Great Bifurcation: movement is good. So comparison opens the door and calculus is performed on what lays beyond. Freedom of movement (science) and judicious control (identity calculus).
My 3 min search for contact info wasn’t fruitful so I decided to reach out here. I wonder if you’d like to discuss nihilism with me. So far in my studies, I can’t find a rational alternative. All philosophies are essentially irrationalities to the absurd existential problem. This is usually obviously to most when considering what Nietzsche called the true world theories. But Even existentialism and absurdism seem to merely replace one god with the next. It’s substitutive, not corrective. Ever read candide? It's a satire against Leibniz ridiculous theistic optimism in life. Pangloss. What a tool box. Leibniz brilliant dude. Invented calculus independently I think. But suffered a delusion. An irrationality. One that I don't have. All of philosophy. From Buddha to Christ. From shoppenhauer to Nietzche. All have agreed on one fundamental truth. Life is suffering And all of their particular philosophical constructs amount to one thing and one thing only. To explain existence in such a way that gives meaning to that suffering. Nietzche perhaps summed it up most succinctly (as he often did) when he wrote.. "he who has a why can endure any how. Anyway. Delusion as to meaning is a psychological immune system that is necessary for perpetuation. I have intense rationality. Hence depression. I don't have the psychological immune system of an irrational "why". Mental illness is a social Construct. It's very definition is compared to the norm. And if the norm is to have the irrational delusion of meaning, then not having it is illness by definition. Intense rationality has its advantages. One example is I'm much better than most at predicting basketball outcomes. Because it's purely analytical. My success rate is astronomical compared to most. Why? I just told you why. Unfortunately much of life it isn't advantageous to be intensely rational. The basic fundamental truth is nihilism. Religion/mythology is the oldest most ubiquitous antidote to nihilism for most of human history. With the scientific age and the enlightenment that antidote got exposed as a fraud. And what’s filled the gap is existentialism/humanism. And it sounds good and smart people such as Nietzche, Sartre, camus, de Beauvoir, etc have set up alternative sources of meaning to take the place of religion and myth. All their fancy writings and words can be boiled down to this however... "we create our own meaning". And they think they've accomplished some great and heroic feat. They are truly proud. But it’s a charade! They've simply exchanged one ridiculous notion with another and hoped you'd be impressed and fooled Camus notes the absurdity of our need for meaning and yet the reality that there is none. His essay "the myth of Sisyphus " (you really should read it. It's short enough) begins with the statement of fact... "there is but one fundamental philosophical question and that is... suicide". Upon waking up each morning, the rational person will ask in all seriousness.. "should I kill myself? Or have a cup of coffee" Camus explains that our attempts to find/create meaning where it doesn't exist is tantamount to suicide anyway. It is a form of intellectual and philosophical suicide to believe in the hogwash. His conclusion is to accept that and yet rebel. I can't see how his rebellion is anything other than a different form of the intellectual manipulation that he chastises though. All philosophers are great at pointing out the irrationality of the other guys "trick" to deal with meaning. Yet they are blind to their own. I'm not. I see the irrationality in all of them. All philosophies are ultimately vain. They all inevitably reduce to one thing. One truth. One inescapability. Nihilism! Perhaps the most poignant and honest description of life was written by one of the greatest authors/thinkers ever. Leo Tolstoy in his “confession”. You should read or listen to it. It’s only 70 or so pages. Won’t take long. But it’s beauty written and brutally honest and piercingly intelligent. But... he eventually devolves into the fantasy of faith to deal with the absurdity of existence. Everyone always does. The alternative is suicide. Nihilism. And that is unacceptable to perpetuation. Soooo. Irrationality must reign as a psychological immunity against void. The idea of having a philosophy is the blindspot itself. There is no meaning. Period. Philosophy is the magic trick/delusion of pretending there is A lot of philosophies claim there is no meaning. And then what do they do? They then say... so here’s the meaning! They ALWAYS bring it back to a meaning. Even if it’s “create your own meaning” (existentialism) or “accept and revolt against the lack of meaning” (absurdism). They all provide a meaning, even while asserting (correctly) that there is none. This has to happen. The only alternative is nihilism. Which cannot coincide with life. Did you read/listen to Tolstoy's confession? I’m extremely unimpressed with Tolstoy’s conclusion to his despair. He has no rational argument. All who see nihilism and then abandon it for philosophy necessarily abandon rationality in some manner or another. His took this form.. “there is no meaning to life and it’s suffering. Not on a rational level. Yet we must live (unsubstantiated axiom). Therefore there must be meaning on a plane higher than the rational level.” I just summed up the book for you in 30 words. Does he prove this? No. Doesn’t even attempt to. He proves lots and lots of things along the way. And yet feels justified in merely asserting the unsubstantiated conclusion. Why? Bc there is no other way to get from the fact of nihilism to any particular magic trick of philosophical meaning. Ok. I thought of a possible meaning to life. A possible “yes” to the question of life that may not be inconsistent in its internal logic Rough outline (will need cleaning up) 1. Realize and Accept the absurd condition. (Consciousness needs meaning, existence is meaningless). 2. Realize that the only logically consistent conclusion is nihilism 3. However, also realize that most people will not recognize or operate with this level of rationality. They will continue to exist with their particular brands of irrationalities (ie philosophies) 4. Given that consciousness does and will exist (even tho it shouldn’t. Even tho doing so is illogical), there is the possibility of acting in a way so as to minimize the level of suffering. 5. Meaning is found in helping the stupid people who continue to live bc of their stupidity to have better lives. Idk. Will have to think on it. Ayn Rand wouldn’t approve I don’t think. It seems almost entirely altruistic and anti to rational self interest. Bc it states that I am sacrificing my best interest (suicide) solely for the benefit of others. Hmm. And there seems to be a certain level of logical inconsistency to it as well. If all is meaningless, why am I valuing the well being of others in the first place? I think that’s an easier one to work out. My premise was never that the well being of conscious agents isn’t important. Only that the highest attainable level of well being is non existence. That is that life is the negative Ev play. But given that most wont choose that option, the next best thing is to strive for the least negative outcome possible. As I heard Jordan Peterson put it today... maybe we can strive for tragedy instead of hell. *when I say "stupid" I don't mean unintelligent. A 180 IQ can be absolutely brilliant within the syllogistic constructs of his or her philosophy. I just meant "blinded" to the fabricated a priori judgments that the system is supported by. Ie. The syllogism can be valid (and brilliant) even tho either the major or minor (or both) premise is wrong. Btw. Enjoy the show! Thoughts?
Seems accurate. Suicide is the best way to escape suffering. Or rather, it would have been better from your point of view to never have been born/developed a conscious mind. The only thing keeping us from ending it all are emotions/social pressure, both of which are irrational.
To reach your conclusion, you still hold onto rationality, still promote it as the ultimate means of understanding. Why not irrationality? Perhaps if you can accept that humans are not machines and are not completely rational, you'll find a better answer to your questions.
Hello there, Stephen! I see that sometimes you read the comments so I'll take a shot. I'd just like to thank you and encourage you at the same time. What you do is more precious than the "One Ring" for Sméagol. I'm a relatively young guy from Hungary, who barely speaks English, but understand it well enough. The first book in my hand (in philosophy topic) was A History of Western Philosophy from Bertrand Russel. And I sweated blood by the time i finished. But you are presenting philosophy in such a unique way, that I fell in love with it even more than I have ever been before. By now, I spent more time listening to you ( I mean actually listening) than I ever spent on any person through my life. And I feel like I learned more from you than from any of them. I'd just like to Thank you once again and I'm looking forward for the first podcast about Your Philosophy. I think that would wort to be Philosophized too. BR
Love these podcasts, currently re-reading Plato with your voice in my mind :) pretty crazy ...
Another crazy experience I had during Christmas time. Went to the shopping mall, last minute gift shopping. During that I was listening to the German school #7 on media , let me tell you. I left my shopping , set on the bench in the middle of the mall, listening to the podcast, and watching people’s behaviour. It was something else.
This channel is a treasure. 💙
The cleanness of a table .. the mythological question in any marrige.
These past two episodes have been articulate, cleverly presented, and very eye-opening.
Great show Stephen - loved the reference to Levi Strauss in Brazil - but didn’t Malinowski do the same thing earlier in the Pacific?… many thanks for so many fantastic and engaging episodes🙏🙏
You are amazing! We thank you so much for what you do for us! Philosophy would have been way harder without you!
Excellent job making Barthes accessible!
Best podcast 10/10
The binary perspective mentioned here (up-down, clean-dirty, sane-insane) helped me remember about one of M. Foucault's ideas: there is no rational without the irrational, we can't define it without its opposition; therefore, for the rational part to exist, the existence of an irrational one is needed. Simplified, light is defined by the lack of darkness.
how the f@@k do you only have 8k subs... love the show !
Is the transcript to this episode available? The only one I can access on the website is for episode 113
8:47 the Matrix is breaking down!
I may be missing the deeper point but what is so special about Barthes analysis of, for example, the black solider saluting the French flag, that we can't just simply call it 'propaganda'? What does the idea of semiotics and deep structure add to our understanding of what is going on that the notion of propaganda doesn't already encompass?
Very informative
I’ve literally done all of those selfies... sans avacado toast
I thought you were going to say being an American is about having a beer.
Conner Fields You Americans don't even have real beer,greetings from Germany.
Waiting for new podcast Stephen. Is everything all right??
Babes, when will you be covering Walter Benjamin? He wants to visit us through you. Let him in.
❤
The people making the surfer dude's clothes for cheap labor rates only does so because it's better than the alternative which may not pay enough to sustain life. To engage in commerce by making clothes for cheap rates allows them to enter, albeit, at the bottom of a system that leads to prosperity. To try and force higher labor rates takes away this person's or this country's competitive advantage which would exclude them from the process and may send them back to a life of hunger. Plenty of myth weaving against capitalism too..
Is this channel still alive?
Yes
i wonder if podcast type bubbles can function as gods and mythologies.. you can spend time listening to certain podcasts and they often have one or two people decreeing values and selecting how to describe the world.. its weird to me how listening to a person for 6 hours a day is almost like them doing the verbal thinking for you.. it feels like a temporary blood transfusion for your brain, if i listen to Joe Rogan all day I feel like bullying ppl a little more and trying to be macho and cool.. if i listen to this i think more and contemplate the world and feel more peaceful.. the good ones seem to each have their own distinct "vibe" or flavor.. but its weird how you have this one way communication where they're the authority telling you how things cause you cant really talk back.. but you're willingly following them and they dont even know you but they might play a big role in your thoughts or life for a while.. its a weird new internet world.. Choose your god and mythology! for a while, then get bored and choose another :D they really affect my behavior.. maybe i just need to get out and socialize more.. Even real people sort of set a paradigm/mythology that you can start to believe.. if you dont like their mythology should you stay away from them, or try to refute them? How mythologies work is weird.. like a black kid in the 1950s blissfully unaware of racism till they learn "the N word" a mythology of negative black stereotypes.. or a nerdy kid having fun playing D&D.. until one day he learns the mythology of "nerd" and what is cool and what is not.. they can get infected, now there's this story that might shape their behavior and have them chasing things they dont even like, but its kind of a BS mythology... they were probably happier when they were blissfully unaware of other people's mythology.. so weird.. but maybe now with internet bubbles people can more and more kinda choose their own mythologies and gods/influencers.. or try to start their own :)
People lack patience with podcasts. Better to to get to it right away then do ad and self promotion or like halfway thru.
Those phenomena are in no way at the mythological level. The myth is not the tales we tale to keep the social structure, that needs no tales as keeping is needed for survival. If it where about social cohesion, why is it always about an individual? Where's the greek-folk myth?.
The myth is a symbolic representation of existence at the deepest level. That is why different societies all over the world, with different cultures, share mythological structures between each other.
I was thinking the same. When we study comparative mythology, the convergence is amazing. Similarly, in metaphysics, almost all mystic traditions describe same experience of the truth. I think structuralism should be seen more on the dangers of artificial myths that stand in the way of real truth of our existence.
are you ok ☺ do not forget us ☺
Here I’ll give you a false dichotomy:
Capitalism vs Socialism
We actual have a Chartal Monetary System (Chartalism), check it out.
Start with A Mitchell Innes, What Is Money, then read Warren Mosler and L Randall Wray
The more science and knowledge is disseminated the less myth and culture are needed, especially those parts of myth and culture that use negative means of persuasion. Perhaps, as the brain applies calculus to slices of (usually) slowly changing reality from moment to moment, culture is padding out what's there with additional slices, like infill that fleshes out reality. This is where influence comes in. There's a lot of repetition out there and understanding acts like a linkage device that combines and simplifies...the calculus that produces identity or fixed, but not necessarily static, ideas. Binary oppositions are both tools for understanding and a mechanism for moving forward in the Great Bifurcation: movement is good. So comparison opens the door and calculus is performed on what lays beyond. Freedom of movement (science) and judicious control (identity calculus).
My 3 min search for contact info wasn’t fruitful so I decided to reach out here. I wonder if you’d like to discuss nihilism with me. So far in my studies, I can’t find a rational alternative. All philosophies are essentially irrationalities to the absurd existential problem. This is usually obviously to most when considering what Nietzsche called the true world theories. But Even existentialism and absurdism seem to merely replace one god with the next. It’s substitutive, not corrective.
Ever read candide? It's a satire against Leibniz ridiculous theistic optimism in life. Pangloss. What a tool box.
Leibniz brilliant dude. Invented calculus independently I think. But suffered a delusion. An irrationality. One that I don't have.
All of philosophy. From Buddha to Christ. From shoppenhauer to Nietzche. All have agreed on one fundamental truth. Life is suffering And all of their particular philosophical constructs amount to one thing and one thing only. To explain existence in such a way that gives meaning to that suffering.
Nietzche perhaps summed it up most succinctly (as he often did) when he wrote.. "he who has a why can endure any how.
Anyway. Delusion as to meaning is a psychological immune system that is necessary for perpetuation. I have intense rationality. Hence depression. I don't have the psychological immune system of an irrational "why". Mental illness is a social Construct. It's very definition is compared to the norm. And if the norm is to have the irrational delusion of meaning, then not having it is illness by definition.
Intense rationality has its advantages. One example is I'm much better than most at predicting basketball outcomes. Because it's purely analytical. My success rate is astronomical compared to most. Why? I just told you why. Unfortunately much of life it isn't advantageous to be intensely rational.
The basic fundamental truth is nihilism. Religion/mythology is the oldest most ubiquitous antidote to nihilism for most of human history. With the scientific age and the enlightenment that antidote got exposed as a fraud. And what’s filled the gap is existentialism/humanism.
And it sounds good and smart people such as Nietzche, Sartre, camus, de Beauvoir, etc have set up alternative sources of meaning to take the place of religion and myth. All their fancy writings and words can be boiled down to this however... "we create our own meaning". And they think they've accomplished some great and heroic feat. They are truly proud. But it’s a charade! They've simply exchanged one ridiculous notion with another and hoped you'd be impressed and fooled
Camus notes the absurdity of our need for meaning and yet the reality that there is none. His essay "the myth of Sisyphus " (you really should read it. It's short enough) begins with the statement of fact... "there is but one fundamental philosophical question and that is... suicide". Upon waking up each morning, the rational person will ask in all seriousness.. "should I kill myself? Or have a cup of coffee"
Camus explains that our attempts to find/create meaning where it doesn't exist is tantamount to suicide anyway. It is a form of intellectual and philosophical suicide to believe in the hogwash. His conclusion is to accept that and yet rebel.
I can't see how his rebellion is anything other than a different form of the intellectual manipulation that he chastises though. All philosophers are great at pointing out the irrationality of the other guys "trick" to deal with meaning. Yet they are blind to their own.
I'm not. I see the irrationality in all of them. All philosophies are ultimately vain. They all inevitably reduce to one thing. One truth. One inescapability. Nihilism!
Perhaps the most poignant and honest description of life was written by one of the greatest authors/thinkers ever. Leo Tolstoy in his “confession”. You should read or listen to it. It’s only 70 or so pages. Won’t take long. But it’s beauty written and brutally honest and piercingly intelligent.
But... he eventually devolves into the fantasy of faith to deal with the absurdity of existence. Everyone always does. The alternative is suicide. Nihilism. And that is unacceptable to perpetuation. Soooo. Irrationality must reign as a psychological immunity against void.
The idea of having a philosophy is the blindspot itself. There is no meaning. Period. Philosophy is the magic trick/delusion of pretending there is
A lot of philosophies claim there is no meaning. And then what do they do? They then say... so here’s the meaning! They ALWAYS bring it back to a meaning. Even if it’s “create your own meaning” (existentialism) or “accept and revolt against the lack of meaning” (absurdism). They all provide a meaning, even while asserting (correctly) that there is none.
This has to happen. The only alternative is nihilism. Which cannot coincide with life.
Did you read/listen to Tolstoy's confession?
I’m extremely unimpressed with Tolstoy’s conclusion to his despair.
He has no rational argument. All who see nihilism and then abandon it for philosophy necessarily abandon rationality in some manner or another.
His took this form.. “there is no meaning to life and it’s suffering. Not on a rational level. Yet we must live (unsubstantiated axiom). Therefore there must be meaning on a plane higher than the rational level.”
I just summed up the book for you in 30 words.
Does he prove this? No. Doesn’t even attempt to. He proves lots and lots of things along the way. And yet feels justified in merely asserting the unsubstantiated conclusion. Why? Bc there is no other way to get from the fact of nihilism to any particular magic trick of philosophical meaning.
Ok. I thought of a possible meaning to life. A possible “yes” to the question of life that may not be inconsistent in its internal logic
Rough outline (will need cleaning up)
1. Realize and Accept the absurd condition. (Consciousness needs meaning, existence is meaningless).
2. Realize that the only logically consistent conclusion is nihilism
3. However, also realize that most people will not recognize or operate with this level of rationality. They will continue to exist with their particular brands of irrationalities (ie philosophies)
4. Given that consciousness does and will exist (even tho it shouldn’t. Even tho doing so is illogical), there is the possibility of acting in a way so as to minimize the level of suffering.
5. Meaning is found in helping the stupid people who continue to live bc of their stupidity to have better lives.
Idk. Will have to think on it. Ayn Rand wouldn’t approve I don’t think. It seems almost entirely altruistic and anti to rational self interest. Bc it states that I am sacrificing my best interest (suicide) solely for the benefit of others. Hmm.
And there seems to be a certain level of logical inconsistency to it as well. If all is meaningless, why am I valuing the well being of others in the first place?
I think that’s an easier one to work out. My premise was never that the well being of conscious agents isn’t important. Only that the highest attainable level of well being is non existence. That is that life is the negative Ev play. But given that most wont choose that option, the next best thing is to strive for the least negative outcome possible.
As I heard Jordan Peterson put it today... maybe we can strive for tragedy instead of hell.
*when I say "stupid" I don't mean unintelligent. A 180 IQ can be absolutely brilliant within the syllogistic constructs of his or her philosophy. I just meant "blinded" to the fabricated a priori judgments that the system is supported by. Ie. The syllogism can be valid (and brilliant) even tho either the major or minor (or both) premise is wrong.
Btw. Enjoy the show! Thoughts?
Seems accurate. Suicide is the best way to escape suffering. Or rather, it would have been better from your point of view to never have been born/developed a conscious mind. The only thing keeping us from ending it all are emotions/social pressure, both of which are irrational.
To reach your conclusion, you still hold onto rationality, still promote it as the ultimate means of understanding. Why not irrationality? Perhaps if you can accept that humans are not machines and are not completely rational, you'll find a better answer to your questions.