Jordan Peterson & The Meaning of Life | Philosophy Tube

Jordan Peterson & The Meaning of Life | Philosophy Tube

Show Video

Thinkest. Thou that hell is but, a fable, I. Think. So still, til, experience. Change, thy mind why this is, hell, nor are we out of it hell. Hath no limits. Nor is circumscribed, in oneself, place for. Where I am, is, hell and. Where. Hell, is, there. Must I ever. Be. Lucifer. Lord, of, hell and regent. Of the damned I'm. A huge fan of Jordan, Peterson in fact. I'll go so far as to say I am the only true, Jordan Peterson fan in, the entire, world for, the damnably, uninitiated. Jordan. Peterson, is a Canadian, psychologist, author of 12 rules for life a very popular, self-help, philosophy book, and maps. Of meaning which, is also, a book he, does a lot of TV, and live appearances. And has a devoted following, both on the internet and in. Hell which. Are increasingly, the same thing, fortunately. For me there, are a lot of philosophers, down here turns, out in order to get into heaven you have to be both Muslim and trans, so there's a lot of people there but it's still pretty exclusive, and they've learned a great deal. Peterson. Presents, as a warrior battling. The forces of, Hell and, darkness, by, which I mean nihilism. A lack, of values. And goals in life and the accompanying sadness, that can sometimes go with it which, he and several other thinkers believe, is endemic, to the modern world he's. A big fan of Nietzsche who did a lot of work on the death of God which, sadly wasn't literally about God being killed but about how can you humans, live meaningful. Lives in. A secular, age how can you go on without falling, into despair in, the face of the sheer pointlessness. Of it all that's, where the self-help, aspect, of his work comes in if everybody. Sank into nihilism, then human. Society, would collapse so you've got to aim at something sort yourself out stand up straight clean, your room and all, that entails Peterson. Doesn't just think that nihilism is depressing, to live with them he also thinks that it's dangerous in his book he talks about how mass killers, can spend too long in nihilism, and come to believe that life isn't worth anything anymore there. Are other causes of mass killings if it was just nihilism which everybody sinks into occasionally, then hell would be full of mass shooters, from every demographic when, in fact they're not a very diverse bunch he, also thinks that post-modernism. And Marxism. Are dangerous. In that nihilist. Way which. Hmm. It, is a little confusing approaching, Peterson's work from the point of view of philosophy, because words like, post-modernism. And Marxism relativism. And nihilism have, technical, meanings that he tends to. Wind. Around and one. Popular, tactic for arguing against him is to explain those technical meanings and show how he's using them incorrectly, but. More, talented, demons than me have tried that before and it doesn't seem to faze him so, what I'd like to do is show why his attack on nihilism, isn't, all it's, cracked up, to be and then. Present. An alternative. Peterson, seems to use the word nihilism, as interchangeable, with. Relativism. Which it isn't really and we'll get to that but, if you follow his work you'd be forgiven for thinking that relativism, is a bad thing the, good doctor has condemned, moral, relativism, multiple, times in his lectures he went on the Joe Rogan show, to say that it was quote just wrong and twelve, rules for life contains a foreword by psychologist Norman Doidge presenting.

Peterson's, Whole career, as a counter, to relativism. The supposedly is that if we were all diehard. Relativists. And every, goal was as good as every other then, we would never truly, value, anything, hence nihilism. And societal. Collapse and Peterson's, not the only one worried about this the philosopher Stephen Hicks and neuroscientist, Sam Harris see relativism, as a rejection of science, and enlightenment, values we'll, come back to both of them former. Breitbart editor, ben shapiro has, linked it with cultural, decay and in his video the ugly truth about relativism, with over 90,000. Views x software. Salesman, stefan, molyneux, says that relativism, is part of a plot driven, by a demonic, thirst, for, power there's, also this video from weird male YouTube, which honestly has one of the best openings, since, Genesis, so, this video is going to be on does. Moral, relativism, lead to pussy worship. The. Common theme running through a lot of these thinkers is that objectivity. Which, is associated with things like reason, the Enlightenment, modernism, the West and judeo-christian. Values is, good. As has, been pointed out by an inspiring. In another video also featuring wings and a nudity many, of those terms are more complicated than they appear whereas, relativism, which is associated, with feelings, social, justice warriors the NatWest. Post-modernism, and dangerous, leftist, thinking, is bad, a lack. Of strongly. Grounded values, can leave individuals. And maybe, societies, open. To corruption, by, demonic, influences. Peterson. Actually, has quite an unusual stance. Compared, to some of those others and I'm not lumping him in with them carelessly down, here, everyone's. Punishment, is bespoke, but. It's worth noting that some of those who claim to have the answer to nihilism do, share some political, themes the question for now is how can you confront, the meaninglessness, of your life without, falling, into nihilism, and despair you.

Have A few options one, is to, believe. In God, yeah. Another, is to invent some new goals and meaning through pop psychology, and recycling. A lot of religion, like Jordan Peterson does taking, God's dead corpse, and turning it into fertilizer or, if. Magic, isn't doing it for you anymore why. Not try. Science. In. 2010. Neuroscientist. Sam Harris responded. To this alleged problem of nihilism and relativism in his, book the moral landscape, he claims that there are objective, answers, to moral questions and that science can, help humans. Discover, them he isn't saying that there will someday be single, scientific, answers to all moral, questions, but he is trying, to find objective. Values, without religion. But the the demigods are right about one thing we need a universal. Conception of human values he thinks that people are too tolerant and that this is a symptom of a dangerous. Cultural. Relativism, a theme, he shares with Petersen Deutsch, Molyneux. Shapiro, and. Harris. Thinks you should all be brave free speech warriors, and face the truth if there are facts. About morality, then. Doesn't it stand to reason that some people or. Cultures, might. Know more about those facts, than others whenever we are talking about facts, certain. Opinions, must be excluded, that is what it is to have a domain of expertise, how have we convinced ourselves that every, culture has a point of view on these, subjects, worth, considering, he's particularly, concerned, that you are too tolerant of behaviors, that he associates, with religion, and conservative. Islam especially, like, requiring women to wear veils and, honor killings, although, in fact both of those behaviors have parallels, in societies, that aren't, quite so influenced, by a conservative Islam, and, arguably say more about controlling, women than they do about religion, what this illustrates, though is that for Harris the quest to find objective, value in life is not, just for the fun of it in his book the end of faith he explicitly discusses, these issues in the context, of American, military intervention. Racial. Profiling, and torture. Apropos. At, the end of this talk a man comes onstage who. Is this guy is this Ted is this TEDTalks mrs. Theodore T talks. Anyway. A man comes onstage and points out something Harris neglected, to mention that. Many Muslim, women wear, veils. Voluntarily. I mean. Can you engage, in a conversation, with, that kind of woman without, seeing. Cultural. Imperialist Harris replies that voluntary. Doesn't really mean all that much in certain contexts, they might be brainwashed by their delusional, belief systems, and so I think we shouldn't be so. Eager to always. Take their word for it so Harris has allowed himself the possibility. Of saying, I know what's, good for you and I don't necessarily need. To ask and. It seems like he's at least open to the idea, that, those in possession of the moral facts. Can, be justified in acting violently. Against, the morally ignorant, that's. The power of having objectivity. On, your side, elsewhere, Harris, mentions, brain scans, as a way of objectively knowing. Who's happy and who's not but. How can you tell the difference between a brain scan of somebody who's really happy, according to Harris and somebody, who's merely deluded. Well. You can't, so. Even though he highly, values, the facts it seems like some are more, valuable than others and it's not clear on what basis, he's weighing them up interestingly, this. Criticism is similar, to one put forward by another thinker. Jordan. Peterson, he, and Harris agree on an awful lot but one thing Peterson has pointed out is that there are so many facts. In the realm of objective, science that you need some story, to help you pick and choose which facts, will be relevant, philosophers.

Would Call that story and ideology, but that's not a word Peterson likes and he has his own ideas which, we'll get to even more, interestingly, Harris's. Idea is an accidental, ripoff of a theory developed by philosopher, Richard Boyd, in 1982. Called, the, homeostatic, plus the property theory of matter ethical naturalism sexy. Title Boyd. Thought that words like good and evil, refer, to real properties, out there in the material, world and that therefore statements. Like murder, is bad are capable. Of being objectively. True or at, least true, in the same way as scientific. Statements, are which, prompts the question to. What exactly, do. These words refer, Boyd's. Answer, is that they are cluster. Properties, groups. Of things that tend to go together the. Example, he uses is actually the same one Harris does health. There. Are all kinds of things that we would want to include in a definition, of the word healthy. Like, your heart should be beating and you should be able to breathe but. Do you have to be a certain size in, order to be healthy do. You have to not be in pain can, you have a beating heart and be, unhealthy. There's. A cluster of properties, here somewhere, that makes up the definition, of the word health but, we're never gonna pin down a definite, list because that's just not how the concept, works, despite. That vagueness though it's still very obviously, useful, and meaningful. Similarly. Boyd, thinks that a word like good refers. To a cluster of things that are non morally, good for humans like sharing, friendship, sharing love having, fun watching, quality, YouTube videos but just like with health you're, never gonna be able to pin down a full list because the concept, just isn't like that and, here's. The big takeaway, if we. Say John. Is healthy, we. Could be talking about any number of things in the cluster of health whether, he has a disease whether he works out whether he has a good relationship with his mother all of, which are objective. But. Whether the sentence, John, is healthy, is true. Will. Still depend on what aspect, of his health we're talking about it. Will still be relative, to. The context, in which we are saying it so, this relative, objective. Binary, that people like Peterson and Harris are working with is an oversimplification. The. Theory boyd defends, is called moral naturalism, it's about as objective, as ethical theories get but, statements. About morality, will, still be true or false relative. To, the context, in which we use them, objectivity. And relativity. Can. Go together. We've. Seen that, attempts, to find objective. Meaning in life through science, can, get pretty complicated pretty, fast which. Might be a problem if that meaning, is something you're expected, to kill for, turns.

Out Getting rid of subjectivity, isn't, so easy after all Peterson, has an interesting, relationship with subjectivity. He. Thinks there are two worlds the world of the objective, and the world of experience, and that it's the world of experience with things like pain and hunger, and stories. That people really, care about, it is, such things experienced. Personally. That are the most fundamental elements. Of human life from the archaic dramatic perspective, and they are not easily, reducible to detached, an objective, you're, not objective, you're, alive you're subjective. Just as the objective, world has atoms and fundamental, particles Petersen, thinks that the experiential. World, too has, its fundamental. Elements, the, dichotomy, for which he is famous, order. And, chaos. Chaos. Is the domain of ignorance itself it's, the foreigner the stranger the member of another gang the rustle in the bushes at nighttime chaos. Is also the foremost potential from which the god of Genesis one called forth order using language at the beginning of time and, chaos. Is freedom, order. By contrast, is explored territory order is tribe religion hearth home country, it's the warm secure living room where the fireplace glows, and the children play but. Order. Is sometimes tyranny. So here we see that Peterson thinks order and chaos can manifest in different ways at different times. No. Great problem there, but. In. That talk I showed you Peterson, gives two examples. Of order, the. Walls of the city and the, uniform, of the police but. There are those for whom walls and, borders are more representative, of chaos if, you've ever traveled internationally, you'll, know that crossing the border is a moment when the unknown and uncertainty. And anxiety can confront you and of course there are many people for whom the uniform of the police is a symbol of terror so can the same thing, be, both order. And chaos. At, the same time if. The, answer is no and they really are objective. At ease and it seems like Peterson needs to answer questions like what, are they and what are they made of from. His books and his conversations, with Harris it seems like he'd rather save either features of subjective, experience, so yes two, people could experience the same thing one as order and one as chaos just as two people could experience the same work of art differently, but if that's the case then.

Order And chaos are relative. Not. Just statements about them either but, the properties themselves, although. He's trying to escape it relativity. Is actually built right into the heart of Peterson's. Entire. Worldview, there's a big tension, here between somebody, who rails against, relativism, on the one hand but, places subjectivity, and, contextual. Understanding at, the heart of most of what he does on the other one, of those fake, Jordan, Peterson fans might say he's not really a relativist, he's, a pragmatist, he's, not trying to defend a philosophical, theory he's trying to help people there's, that whole bit in Chapter nine about how it's good to order your life based on some principles, whether it's Freud young religion, or whatever the point is to avoid nihilism. But I think it's a stretch to say that Peterson, would consider any ordered. Life to be as good, as any other it. Definitely seems like he thinks some interpretations. Of order and chaos are more on the money than others which, again is in deep tension with their relativistic. Nature, Peterson, I'm sure would say that order and chaos are evolved, into the structure of your human brains according. To him your ancestors. Learned that some behaviors, were advantageous, and they unconsciously. Developed, rules for, those behaviors, which we can come to be consciously, aware of through, the telling of stories that's. Why he thinks stories, and tradition are so important, so, it's, not a hundred percent relative, it's grounded. In people's experiences. But, it's still objectively. Biological. This, is quite similar to an idea developed by Swiss psychiatrist Carl, Jung one, of Peterson's major inspirations, who proposed the existence of a collective, unconscious, to. Explain, similarities. That he observed. Between. His patients, Peterson. Came up with his version to, explain similarities. That he observed in the, different fields he studied for maps of meaning but. Anything, is similar, to anything, if you. Look hard enough, lions. Are similar to lingerie in that they're both made of atoms, judging. Two things to be similar in a way that matters, though is. Subjective. And relative. To the context, as, a zookeeper once said to me lions are similar to laws written at they're both made of atoms but this is the lion enclosure of the Central Park Zoo so will you and your girlfriend please leave take, these two images one, is in 19th century painting, by Italian artist Roberto firuze II showing, the Virgin Mary and Jesus and the other is a vast from the 5th century BC showing, the goddess Demeter her daughter Persephone and the man tripped tall Amos being given some wheat I might. Say I think, there are similarities between these they're both images of women mothers symbols, of new life but, they're also different in many ways they come from very different cultures and times and are made of different materials, to. Say I think. There are similarities here, that are relevant relative. To certain contexts. Is a statement, that forefronts, a subjective, judgment I think there are similarities that, I am telling you about for, some reason that I have. But. If I say marry, and Demeter are both instances, of the archetype, of the Great Mother which exists, in the collective, unconscious, then.

It Sounds like I'm being objective, 12, rules for life is full of this what, philosophers, call reification. Making. Something into, a thing, from. Hierarchies, to archetypes, Peterson uses, objective sounding. Language when really what he's doing is subjectively. Drawing comparisons for, his own reasons and that's, the only true Jordan Peterson fan in the world I don't have a problem with that but, it does mean that all his psychology, still can't get him out of relativism, by. The standard. He sets himself his. Attempt, to find meaning, in life fails. None of this by the way is me claiming, that science is all subjective or the reality doesn't exist maybe there really is a collective, unconscious, maybe you have similar brains and therefore tend to think in similar ways but, the point is that the subjective, and the objective are, not so easily crobat apart which, is why questions. Like who. Gets to write the stories, who. Gets to decide what, represents, order and what that's chaos are, important. And, don't. Look now but. It looks like we're. Heading into. Bertolt. Brecht, was a 20th, century playwright. And theatre practitioner, one of those horribly, pretentious, people who tried to combine philosophy. With theater for which he was damned to hell for, all eternity and, Brecht, would often employ theatrical. Techniques that drew his audience's, attention to. The fact that they were watching a play he. Called it epic theater in contrast, to dramatic theater which tries to present an illusion, of reality rather, than maintain, a fourth-wall Brecht. Would try to deliberately. Remind, his audience, that, what they are watching is, just. So. Far I've done my best to engage with Peterson's ideas on their own terms and take, them seriously albeit. In a bit of an irreverent tone, but. Now I want to take a step back I said that there's this tension there between being. Very against relativism on the one hand but actually relying on it on the other and. I'm curious about why that tension is there Peterson, does not like post-modernism. At all he, associate, sit very much with the relativism, and the nihilism that he's trying to combat and, he says that the goal of post-modernism, is to reduce everything to power, relations, there, are no real categories, like race and gender no real morality, only, power and if, only power exists, then the use of power becomes fully justifiable, it is almost impossible to overestimate the nihilistic and destructive, nature of this philosophy it puts the act of categorization itself, into doubt it, negates the idea that distinctions, might be drawn between things for any reasons other than that a raw power why so down on post-modernism. Well Peterson, does, not like Marxism. At all, he's, reviewed the history the 20th century and he thinks that Marxism leads inevitably to tyranny. And genocide. And chaos and. That's. Another topic for another video we don't have time to get into it today. That's, just his political position he then says that Marxist, intellectuals, like Sartre, and Derrida, needed, some way of making Marxism, cool again after, everybody in Europe supposedly. Realized, that it was evil so they substituted. The idea of power for the idea of money society, was no longer repression, of the poor by the rich, it was the oppression of everyone by the powerful and this allowed them to crack right on with being evil Marxists, but just change, up the lingo, unfortunately. This. Misunderstands. Both Marxism, and post-modernism. As other youtubers, more talented than me have pointed out before those two sets of ideas are actually contradictory.

And At the time a lot of the early post modernists, were writing the Marxist left did not need help it was still going strong so, this idea that post-modernism, was a PR move or a cover-up by Marxists is I'm afraid just, theoretically. And historically false and. I know where he's gotten this idea to Peterson's made a source for a lot of these claims it's a book by the right-wing force of a Stephen Hicks called understanding. Post-modernism, and unfortunately. For our boy JP, the. Book is to put it technically just. It's really getting, bad if, you want the blow-by-blow of all the sloppy mistakes then Kok philosophy, has a great video on it but Hicks is central error that then gets transmitted, over to Peterson is this idea that post-modernism, is essentially, destructive. But. When Foucault for instance was talking about how, knowledge, always, presupposes. Some power relations, the, real goal was to say oh you know knowledge. In logic. It's just what's the oppressors. Say it is and the truth is, just, whatever, so let's. Tear down the, capitalist, patriarchy. All the structures, of the West and. And. That's just not what post-modernism, is about that's all so I mentioned Brecht, a few minutes ago an example, of a Brechtian technique, might be using, title cards to tell the audience what's about to happen doing. A serious piece in a silly costume showing. Them how, a particular, effect is achieved or. Showing. Them how, the show is made to, draw your attention to the fact that what you're watching is a constructed, representation. Not, reality, because, once you see how, the story, is made to go the way it goes you, also. See how it could have gone differently, Brecht, himself was a Marxist, and he wanted his audiences to criticize, his characters, in their store as an, intro to criticizing. Their own but, it needn't be just a Marxist thing the British comedian see. The Sun has just come out from behind a cloud and it's completely changed the colour temperature in here this. Is why I hate filming, with natural light this. This is why coloured, lights are just objectively better I, mean. Of the two principles Apollonian, and Dionysian this is a clear demonstration of why the done I've seen this better Brecht himself, was a Marxist, and he wanted his audiences, to criticize his characters, and their world as an. Intro. To criticising their own but it needn't be just, a Marxist thing the British stand-up comedian Stuart Lee uses a lot of Brecht in the theatre techniques to get his audience to criticize, the comedy, industry. Which. Is probably why so many young stand-up comedians, struggling, in that same industry, try and rip him off. One. Of the best modern examples, of Brecht in theatre techniques I can think of is this TV show it's read thoughtful, it's, really cerebral, like very intellectual but a slow burner, it's called RuPaul's Drag Race the show cuts between footage, of the Queen's performing, and confessional. Footage which is shot out of drag reminding. The audience that at least on this show these, are performance is done by and large by, men and when, they perform as the Queen's they're outrageous, and campion over-the-top it's kind of hyper femininity. Which, prompts the audience to ask why, what. Are gender expectations anyway, really and do you care more, about meeting, those expectations. Or. About, looking good but, getting somebody to question, why something, is the way it is isn't. The same as getting them to throw it out Petersen. Says that post-modernism, and critiques, about how power shapes, our ideas remove, the possibility of choice choice. Has no place in the ideological picture, if men, and women act voluntarily to, produce gender, unequal outcomes those, very choices must have been determined by cultural bias in consequence.

Everyone, Is a brainwashed, victim whatever gender differences exist and the rigorous critical, theoretician, is morally, obligated to set them straight the surrounding context makes it clear there that he's talking about setting people straight through force, so again there's. This idea that it's essentially, violent and destructive, generously. Ignoring, the fact that Peterson frequently. Does the same thing he's criticizing. Their assumes. Without talking to people that he knows what's going on inside their heads and what's really good for them trans, rights he's, correct, to note that power sometimes shapes, us even on the level of our desires but. Realizing that doesn't take away choice if anything it gives us more choices because now we, can think about why we value the things we do like Brecht, the goal of post-modernism and critical theory isn't to minimize the role of choice or the individual, or justify violence, against those who make the wrong choices it's, to get you to realize that many of the things you see around you and the, ways in which you look at them can. Change if. You want them to and. Drawing. People's attention to their psychological bad habits so they can reflect on where they come from and whether or not they want to indulge them post-modernism. Is doing a similar thing just, on the level of societies, and ideas, in 12 rules for life Peterson talks about the importance of articulating. Clearly, what you want of standing, up for yourself of thinking about what you value and why you value, it of taking risks and being daring, even if it potentially risks your safety or other people's and that's all good advice but. He only wants you to do it as an individual, if. You start getting together with other people, standing. Up for yourselves, articulating. Clearly what you want thinking, about what you value and why you value, it politically. Speaking, maybe advocating, for some potentially. Risky, and transformative. Social, ideas. All. Of a sudden, that's. A bad thing because. It doesn't fit with his politics or is, understanding, of human psychology which as we've seen is pretty subjective the peterson project is deeply, relativist, deeply subjective, and deeply, ideological. And again as the only true fan, of jordan Peterson in the entire, world I don't. Have a problem with that but. I'm not the, one who built my whole career telling people that these ideas pave the road to hell. Well. Bugger, me blue it looks like life really is meaningless after all whether, we try to find objective, value through brain scans, or Petersons, ism or whatever. Stefan molyneux to peddling it, looks like we can't escape the quicksand, of relativism, and subjectivism, we. Could give religion another go but. It. Just seems like a lot of work, also. It has its own philosophical problems, which are pretty well trodden I just, want to have fun, is there any philosophy, that's about having fun well there is one idea that's a, little bit controversial, maybe. You've heard of it it's. Called try. And fucking enjoy yourself, hedonism. Is. Like snakes, it. Has a nasty reputation but, it's, actually, quite sweet it's. Associated, with Vice and, frivolous.

Enjoyment, Social. Media, and. Seeking. Pleasure outside, of the light of Christ but, when philosophers, talk about pleasure they don't just mean the cheap and easy thrills pleasure. Can. Mean any mental. State that is desired, that means, that we can still talk about somebody, experiencing. Pleasure even. If they are physically, in. Pain and, yes there, are some pleasures. That if overindulged. In might, lessen your pleasure in the long run heroin. And infidelity. To. Name just two, components of my typical Friday night I once spent an entire Sunday, in a bathtub coming down from getting absurdly high on MDMA and. It was one of the bleakest periods of my life because my brain wouldn't, make any more of a happy juice and now, I don't do MDMA, anymore because it's a whole lot of pleasure in one go but it limits the pleasure of my whole life and a, general attempt to maximize pleasure, over your lifetime could, lead to a pretty meaningful existence and if you don't want to think of it as hedonism, think of it as. Maximizing. Your own rational, self-interest, with respect to happiness you can be a hedonist, and still, reflect, on why you want, what, you want still. Pay attention to your own thoughts as peterson might put it it's not about being a slave to your passions all the time by choosing to get off the mandy i'm sacrificing, small. Pleasures now for, greater pleasure. Overall, which, is something that Peterson also places, a lot of emphasis on believe me hedonism, is entirely, consistent, with delayed, gratification a, philosophy, of life that tells, people to ignore pleasure, just isn't going to go anywhere that's, why I'm not so hot on most major religions even. Peterson, with all of his life is suffering rhetoric, knows, this the final, rule in 12 rules for life is pet. A cat when you encounter, one on the street and what, is that if not an invitation to take pleasure in the little things when you find them I know, that in my darkest moments I find a little thing that brings me pleasure it's important to do something other than masturbate, yes, Nietzsche's, approach was, to say look a work, of art can be stylish yes and, to say that it's stylish implies, some standard, but. Stylishness, is less about the work conforming, to an external objective standard. And more, about a particular harmony. Between all the notes so. Sing the song of your life like. A work of art with. Balance and grace call. It a torrid, espressivo. Some, Forte and some pn s MO some solos and some ensemble, pieces a little bit of dueling day and probably some wrong notes especially, if it's me singing The, Clash's acknowledged, and faced up to but, presented in such a way as to make them sublime, so, that the effect of the whole is, a kind of harmony and this. Too is consistent, with hedonism, in, order to get what you desire you have to know yourself and understand. All, of your varied, wants, even. See. This is why Jordan Peterson's favorite Russian author is Dostoyevsky, but mine is Ladda, mein avakov because, the characters, in Nabokov, books understand, that sometimes the. Best response, to the meaninglessness, of life is, to just fuck your own sister the, French philosopher Albert, Camus had his own strategy for confronting nihilism, he thought there was a fundamental, contradiction between, humans, desire to seek meaning, in your lives and life, itself which is meaningless and he, gave this contradiction a name the. Absurd. Camus. Wasn't, a hedonist but he wouldn't have been a fan of Peterson either he thought you shouldn't run from the absurd try to pick goals and meaning like cleaning a room to, escape it instead, he wanted people to live their lives in full knowledge of its meaninglessness, to, confront, the absurd and go. On living anyway. One of the figures Camus, discusses, is Don Juan a legendary. Character of theater and literature, who appears as a serial, seducer, of women, he, travels from country to country often in disguise seducing.

Women Of all ages and backgrounds not, out of a secret desire for true love running, about nonsense but, for, the sheer sport, of seduction. Many. Versions of the story give, moral, commentary. On his actions some, even end with him being sent here to hell and, one of the objections to hedonism is that you could lead a very pleasurable, life but. A very immoral, one, Camus. May also have had a personal investment in the character of Don Juan in 1959. He wrote a letter containing. The sentence, this, frightful. Separation. Will at least bring home to us more than ever the. Constant, need we, have for each other I await. You full, of strength, and, passion. That. Letter was. Not addressed to his wife but. To one of his four. Mistresses. But. Camus says, that Don Juan isn't immoral per. Se, he's just a moral, morality. Doesn't factor into what he considers a worthwhile existence, how could it once, he'd confronted, the absurd and realized that life is meaningless, this, is distinct, from hedonism, because it's not just about pleasure, it's, about taking the right attitude, towards. The pleasure an argument. That sadly, mrs.. Camus, was not persuaded, by his. Second wife Francine, for had depression and jumped. Off a balcony, in part, because of her, husband's infidelity, she. Survived and their reconciled, but to me this illustrates a far stronger objection, to hedonism, sometimes. Its trailer doesn't work some. Days are so bleak that even. The thought of pleasure, and happiness just. Makes. Me sick thinkest. Thou that I who saw, the face, of God and tasted. The eternal, joys of heaven I'm not, tormented. With ten thousand. Hell's in, being, deprived, of, everlasting, bliss and, then. The water goes cold but, you sit there anyway because sometimes, hell, is. A bathtub, in Debden, but, as we've seen other. Attempts, to find meaning in life are hardly, a hundred percent effective or morally, bulletproof, either what. I do on those days is, try. And talk to my friends and then they don't answer my messages because I'm a reclusive internet weirdo so I listen.

To Music or look at art or if it's really not working I just wait, for the drugs to wear off so, that I can sing the next verse of my life and every. Single, time. I would, rather have the, snake. Than. The snake. You. Promise too. Much. So, busy, showing. Me where. You. Forgot, to switch your, feelings. Goodbye. Dr., P. Goodbye. Don't aunty. Good. Killed. Us. Goodbye. John. You. You. Does, moral, relativism, lead to pussy worship yes.

2019-04-13 18:40

Show Video

Comments:

https://www.patreon.com/philosophytube would be a very helpful place to visit: this video has been hit with a nasty little copyright claim by Sony Music and so I won't get the ad money, which isn't loads but definitely makes a difference because this was my most expensive and time-consuming to date!

The Big Bad Wolf I wouldn’t say it’s legitimate, the song is a parody. But, it’s also difficult to fight against, which is the way YouTube made it to be.

You know, I think the nudity and snakes are a revolutionary teaching tool. Usually if sitting down to listen to a 40min video, I'll boot up tetris on the side to keep my eyes and hands busy, or pick up some knitting. But here... I... I just can't tear my eyes away....

Do a video on abolishing copyright!

+Dream Delirium I do, but right wing, gun nut, loonies don't. Which is what makes it a fun aesthetic. It's a paradody within a parody.

Oh shit!!!!

+Robert Hamilton So, you have no idea what Satanism is...

+Master Adjustereification

Snakes and some nails and contacts was more than the horse?

+Dream Delirium because its a fun aesthetic and neither God nor Satan exist.

This one got me to be a monthly Patron, Olly. Well done you

+Riley Carpenter There's a url for where you can do at the bottom of the screen for most of the ending song.

Other news