I completely loved this series on Simone De Beauvoir! I was just relistening to some old episodes of yours and realized it's been so long since we visited The Island. Though truthfully political philosophy is my least favorite I've come to miss that strange little island in our heads. I am but a humble listener, but I think De Beauvoir's belief that true freedom is only possible by maximizing the freedom of others serves as a nice segue back into the political stuff. I'm sure you have a whole slew of episodes planned up, but it'd be great to dust off our swim trunks for a return visit.
Thanks for uploading your videos on TH-cam. A lot of people I talk to about your show are super interested in your topics, but sadly, do not have Spotify. They're already on the binge-watching haha.
It is truly difficult to "deprogram" yourself from the "cult" (bias) of habit, tradition, family, culture, historical time, religion, etc. Better to accept the impossibility of being totally objective and work with what you are and have.
Be aware when you hear someone reducing ambiguity. Finding balances between different duties/preferences/states of consciousness etc. Parents - see them as gods so they protect this ambiguity. Until older: Deny ambiguity pain -subman passionate man nihilist Adventurer (take free values, recognise ambiguity, don't fall for cultural values, but they are selfish). So close to being free though. Not willing the freedom of others (tyrannies can happen from this). You are necessarily in society because people in past and present willed their freedom to make your choices possible. Maximum freedom of others high priority. Our meaning and values are tied to society. What gives us value is others freedom to choose that you are valuable. Like manager in sports team. Or family. Aesthetic man - objective critical attitude only. Art - view it from a particular biased attitude. Again remove oneself from history. (Be careful about anyone saying they are objective). Spectators of history, detaching from history as if not contributing to it. Actively contributing to history. Ethical person - will own freedom and others freedom (but not utopia, oppression happens). Stoicism - volatility, you don't have absolute external control. Agree with this partially but earthquakes are different to tyrannies. Reduces other people to fodder. Other people can participate in openness but they can also close (bad people exist). If oppressed, you have ethical obligation to will freedom of yourself and others (ignore people saying natural order of things and you don't have a right to Transcendence, to act in the world). Don't we need to deny freedom of oppressor? Yes. Violence justified when oppressed or recognise people being oppressed. Need massive contemplation and wisdom and understanding consequences from actions. Unfortunately morality not so simple. No clear recipe even after lots of reading/lectures.
i'm a nietzschean and i have a question. when you say freedom of others, who are these others? all humans? do neanderthals count? at what point in evolution can you put your finger and say "this fellow's freedom is irrelevant" ? and if you don't, are you supposed to value the freedom of a human as much as a mosquito? surely not. then why *all* humans? why not only white people for example? nietzsche wasn't that selfish, he cared about "fellow creators" and the "overman" a lot. is that enough? why not? it seams to me (and i'm probably wrong) De Beauvoir seems like a good, kind, extraverted woman and nietzsche seems like an elitist far right introverted man, and they both sneak their biases in. i'm more like nietzsche (in fact, having asperger's i'm way more solitary in nature, and being 99th percentile in disagreeableness, way more elitist) so i'm probably biased too, but his philosophy seems more aligned with evolution. i don't get this part at all.
The biases part I don't get, but the point about humans is interesting. I guess the reasoning behind granting humans superiority is selfish in its own way.
I see extending it to the whole being and conscius universe is mor appropriate, rather than narrowing it to superoverwhite men. These are views about the universe and the conscious coinside of the universe.
Thank you for this!!! Really helped me with my college philosophy class.
I completely loved this series on Simone De Beauvoir! I was just relistening to some old episodes of yours and realized it's been so long since we visited The Island. Though truthfully political philosophy is my least favorite I've come to miss that strange little island in our heads. I am but a humble listener, but I think De Beauvoir's belief that true freedom is only possible by maximizing the freedom of others serves as a nice segue back into the political stuff. I'm sure you have a whole slew of episodes planned up, but it'd be great to dust off our swim trunks for a return visit.
Thanks for uploading your videos on TH-cam. A lot of people I talk to about your show are super interested in your topics, but sadly, do not have Spotify. They're already on the binge-watching haha.
If I pass my ethics final tomorrow the credit is all yours my man. Ill be coming back as well, the way you teach these topics is actually interesting.
sooo....? Pass?
@@joshk7051 he's still taking the test, give him time
@@gugugagagugu07 now its already 3 years dude
This is so helpful to my life and my purpose right now, thank you S W!!
Remarkable, amazing. Thanks for doing this.
Do you have the transcript to this episode somewhere? I looked and it's missing from your site. Please and thank you!
Looks like this episode is without transcript. Autogenerated subtitles on youtube work well enough.
Oppressors gonna oppress - great podcast!
The last part reminds me of the paradox of tolerance by karl popper
TIL of the straight line that goes from de Beauvoir's definition of oppression to Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance.
It is truly difficult to "deprogram" yourself from the "cult" (bias) of habit, tradition, family, culture, historical time, religion, etc. Better to accept the impossibility of being totally objective and work with what you are and have.
Be aware when you hear someone reducing ambiguity. Finding balances between different duties/preferences/states of consciousness etc.
Parents - see them as gods so they protect this ambiguity. Until older:
Deny ambiguity pain
-subman passionate man nihilist
Adventurer (take free values, recognise ambiguity, don't fall for cultural values, but they are selfish). So close to being free though. Not willing the freedom of others (tyrannies can happen from this).
You are necessarily in society because people in past and present willed their freedom to make your choices possible. Maximum freedom of others high priority.
Our meaning and values are tied to society. What gives us value is others freedom to choose that you are valuable. Like manager in sports team. Or family.
Aesthetic man - objective critical attitude only. Art - view it from a particular biased attitude. Again remove oneself from history. (Be careful about anyone saying they are objective). Spectators of history, detaching from history as if not contributing to it. Actively contributing to history.
Ethical person - will own freedom and others freedom (but not utopia, oppression happens).
Stoicism - volatility, you don't have absolute external control. Agree with this partially but earthquakes are different to tyrannies. Reduces other people to fodder. Other people can participate in openness but they can also close (bad people exist).
If oppressed, you have ethical obligation to will freedom of yourself and others (ignore people saying natural order of things and you don't have a right to Transcendence, to act in the world).
Don't we need to deny freedom of oppressor? Yes. Violence justified when oppressed or recognise people being oppressed. Need massive contemplation and wisdom and understanding consequences from actions.
Unfortunately morality not so simple. No clear recipe even after lots of reading/lectures.
I don’t really get it, it sounds good to will the freedom of others, but isn’t it an impossible task? It seems like she’s also chasing a utopia.
i'm a nietzschean and i have a question. when you say freedom of others, who are these others? all humans? do neanderthals count? at what point in evolution can you put your finger and say "this fellow's freedom is irrelevant" ? and if you don't, are you supposed to value the freedom of a human as much as a mosquito? surely not. then why *all* humans? why not only white people for example? nietzsche wasn't that selfish, he cared about "fellow creators" and the "overman" a lot. is that enough? why not?
it seams to me (and i'm probably wrong) De Beauvoir seems like a good, kind, extraverted woman and nietzsche seems like an elitist far right introverted man, and they both sneak their biases in. i'm more like nietzsche (in fact, having asperger's i'm way more solitary in nature, and being 99th percentile in disagreeableness, way more elitist) so i'm probably biased too, but his philosophy seems more aligned with evolution. i don't get this part at all.
The biases part I don't get, but the point about humans is interesting. I guess the reasoning behind granting humans superiority is selfish in its own way.
I see extending it to the whole being and conscius universe is mor appropriate, rather than narrowing it to superoverwhite men. These are views about the universe and the conscious coinside of the universe.