Видео

I just stumbled on this series and it’s quite interesting, I appreciate someone taking all this time to respond in-depth to something that many people simply dismiss. That said, I think some of your arguments here are really bad. I haven’t finished the video yet so maybe you address these criticisms later but I wanted to get my thoughts out now while I have the chance. I also wanna be clear that I’m not necessarily defending Black or his specific vision of a world without work, I just think the arguments you use against him are quite poor. I think your most basic mistake is assuming that “work” just means any kind of strenuous activity but I don’t think this is necessarily the case. I think it’s perfectly possible to organize something like growing food or running a grocery story in a way that’s relatively pleasant and freeing to those involved, say, but rotating simple tasks among many people. Thus, your core assumption, that a society without work would immediately collapse into subsistence farmers and bandits, seems unfounded. Furthermore, I don’t think you can so easily assert that, in a society without work and without government, there would be no impediment to people stealing or otherwise aggressing against each other. I’d argue it would actually be the opposite. In a society of relative equals, where everyone is free to do as they please, any conflict is likely to be mutually destructive to all parties involved. Now, some people may still get into conflicts despite the harm they’d be doing to themselves, but that’s unavoidable in any society. Compare that to our world today where politicians are able to wage wars, cops are able to steal/murder, and governments are able to plunder wealth on a massive scale without fear of anyone (besides maybe other governments) fighting back against them. There is more I could go into but I think it would require a much more in-depth explanation of anarchist theory than I have the time or energy to provide here. Anyway, I know this is an old video, I don’t know if you still agree with what you said here or if you’re even still active, but I hope that if you’re reading this you at least understand where I’m coming from.

criminally underrated video

Thank you for expressing your experience in such a heartfelt, human, and humble way.

not subscribing to any foundational beliefs is to hold a foundational belief that there are no foundational beliefs

Very helpful content. I read in Stengers Making Sense in Common page 79 that Whitehead did avoid the trap of reflection, contemplation and communication as speculative empiricism takes creativity as the ultimate principle (see Debaise). Perhaps we think with Stengers for a bit considering reflection. I read in an interview with her that can be found online, that she distinguishes guilt and shame with the help of Deleuze. She says that guilt is 'a feeling that takes up the whole space', whereas 'shame stimulates reflection'. As I understand it, shame is just as guilt also a feeling, but it leaves room for reflection, it 'urges us to relate differently to our past and therefore to our present'. Therefore I think reflection does not need concepts and is not creative but it does require one to feel and to be sensitive.

You realize davisanism is a page that posts his best jokes and bits? Like he had good advice why cant people just take that and learn from it instead of doing all this bullshit lmao

Great interview, great work. Thanks for this presentation, Varsity. Peace.

Thanks for reporting on this subject matter. IMO you are certainly more fair, balanced and objective in your analysis. Most other interviewers are biased, their minds are already made up and all they want to do is drag Heaven's Gate through the mud just to reinforce their own unsolved insecurities. I think I'll give your channel a shout out in one of my upcoming videos.

Thanks Ben Shapiro's philisopher clone

I may be missing something; my comment assumes you are referring to the classical def of knowledge as justified true belief. You seem to object to these two non-evidentialist theories by giving false negative instances of knowledge, but these two surely these two methods dont "reject" knowledge? It could be the case a burglar is in you house and you are high on shrooms, so you dont know there is a burglar in your house, yet nevertheless it is true that there is a burglar in your house. It is perfectly fine for things to be true yet you dont know they are true in theories of knowledge, correct?

Excellent! Thank you so much!

Thanks for this 👍

Strange. Are you familiar with Foundherentism? if so, what are your thoughts on it. I know that people like Susan Haack and Roderick Long come to mind.

Good and earnest video

This is so goofy is amazing

for personal reference : 38:30 but I wouldn't care about them if they were true because I don't even think that truth really works that way I don't think that there is such things as as truths that are somehow divorced from our goals and values in quite that way in the first place so I think philosophers got off um at least in contemporary analytic philosophy on a catastrophically wrong foot by uh I guess you could say um retaining and and continuing to amplify the categories and distinctions uh characteristic of much of Western philosophy uh Plato had a 39:07 huge influence I and and then you inject all the Christian elements into it or and like the just the monotheistic stuff the the dichotomy between this metaphysical good and evil that are part of this Cosmic battle between like God and Satan and you know that again I think helps prime the pump cognitively for people to externalize goodness and Badness to these like Cosmic entities outside of us I think that you know I'm I I know I'm blasting with a lot of stuff here but it's all interwoven and the this whole idea uh of goodness and 39:42 Badness and and the like truth being this thing that's distinct I think all of this is really a kind of um it's a contingent feature of the pack dependent ways like the the idiosyncratic ways in which contemporary Western philosophy and more recently analytic philosophy developed and I think that th those that sort of two-pronged objection uh sorry two-prong injection of Greek philosophy and Christianity into the sort of underlying foundations of Western philosophy kind of got things off on a on a totally 40:13 screwed up start to begin with

Great explanations guys. I wish I could have heard you guys when I was the only one in High School reading Schopenhauer. I don't think Shopenhauer was off on expectations of the world. Schopenhauer lead me to be obsessed with Rimbaud. I also beleive in the original RFK and his ideas about the Greeks. Martin Luther said the idea of life is that at the end you don't like it. You only love life. I totally beleive in his idea about Suicide. You make great points about his ideal there. You guys are so great😮!!!!!!! In filling a great picture of Aurther Schopenhauer ideas. Thank you!!!!

Jim Morrison to Arthur Rimbaud is like Fredrick Neitzche. I loved Schopenhauer when Neitzche quoted the resignation from life in Geneology of Morals. ❤❤❤

Feuerbach is us. we are Feuerbach.

hey varsity, big fan of your videos (especially this series). i think you do an amazing job at laying out some of Marx's basic ideas and whenever I hear someone talking about wanting to understand Marx I always recommend this playlist - it puts things in a clear and concise way for a philosopher who's writings aren't always clear or concise. i know in the past i think you've stated you're not a marxist, but I've always wondered if you have any philosophy(s) you do feel you subscribe to? and are you a communist or something of the sort, or just interested in exploring marxist philosophy? also love the DK shirt lol

You are really good at explaining this.

Theres a few similarities with the Hare Krishna religion with thinking the body is just a vehicle also the vegetarian eating....

Yeah they seem like nice people but even nice people buy into bullsht

Vibin

Love Lacan and Orridge.

Subbed

Oh they are eating a vegan diet? That explains the grey skin.

Peter from the convo there. Hopefully I wasn't too bananas

I don't believe that the only criticism I was able to find on YT is exactly what I hoped to find. I agree with all you've said, references, wider context... (pretty much) everything. The only minor point where I would disagree across the whole series, and this might be just a question of definitions really, is on a topic of economy. This was mentioned I think in 2nd part. I disagree with statement that hunters and gatherers had (meaningful) economy. My definition of economy would necessitate both scarcity and surplus. While there is no question that primitive societies like hunters and gatherers had scarcity, I would argue that they didn't have surplus. And without surplus there is no need to engage in real redistribution of the surplus which could be described as economic activity. My assumption is that by your definition any form of trade and exchange is economic activity. This is why I think this is really just a question of definition of what economy is. By my definition, I would grant the "implosion of economy" and general lack of interest in economic analysis of the work which you have criticized. Since as I said mere existence of scarcity and presence of primitive forms of trade and exchange do not qualify as economic activity. They are just social activities we can't analyze economically. That's literary the only thing where I disagree. Note that I'm neither philosopher nor economist. Your WORK really deserves more attention than it's getting. I hope I managed to encourage you to continue WORKING on these videos.

What a vid! Very fascinating!You’re the first person I heard describing the death drive not necessarily as a desire for physical death, but rather, a desire to destroy all desire.

just now finding this. downloading it now to listen to at work.. i'm sure i'll comment after i listen.

Bro, you are doing so well! Thank you!!

Thanks for the upload, great to hear more direct info about heavens gate.

Great video. I like the opening music. Keep up the good work. Peace.

3:10 Death? Murder? Kidnap? I doubt dude just stepped in front of a train.

Nice vid. Love this song.

I'M CONFLICTED with your view at 13:10 most of the os was made under other names without religious names. Eg. sparrow os. When ever he didn't bother arguing to much he would often say it was a demand from God. For example the 640x480 resolution, when he in the beginning argued it was for to performance of a simple 3d renderer. He always cherished low line count and keeping things simple.

Thanks for this

This video really digs deep, breaking down the lyrics in a way that's easy to understand but still gives you a lot to think about. Thanks for this insightful review! Its kinda exciting cause I don't think Terry ever expected people to analyze his work this deeply.

Great video, thank you.

Contextualism is more popular than invariantism.

Strange. How do you feel about Heidegger's Resolute Dasein?

For more information on the Davisans, please see their website churchoftheaichrist.com/ They also have a discord server discord.com/invite/nnSGRPHgYv

discord.com/invite/pgpWJ2ZS3z For anyone interested in learning more about the Aazlor's work with Funism, or if you have any questions for them directly, I've provided a link to their Discord Server (above)

6:30 “ no one has gotten there, so anywhere is a good place to start” In Judaism Joy is of central importance, the pursuit and cultivation of it particularly one day a week observance (at least). There are many religious practitioners articulating similar views, they are simply mystics and outside mainstream awareness. What I like about this approach is it makes it more explicitly communal and participatory as a core (similar to Quaker meeting but… “fun”). I agree with the power and importance of engaging a collective imagination with a self selecting group of individuals. I wish you luck on reaching people to have fun.

Not a bad guy. But he has some ripening to do.

Homo ludens

Love you guys, Clayton and Becca. Thanks Matt for conducting this interview. I'd like to read their holy document if they release it. I had a few questions. I don't understand how people can 'learn' something from the game. If the game is only limited by the imagination base of its players, then isn't the maximum capacity of learning is limited to the creative ability of the players? I believe, we learn by experience; from outside forces. If we just imagine everything, then the outcome of the scenario necessarily does not reflect reality. I'm not learning, I'm not understanding the world better- I'm falling into a fantasy. What if someone doesn't enjoy board games? Can they participate in funism? at 41:15, he says that if someone does something not copacetic, they can be kicked from the game. So do the rules of funism change for each group of people who play it? Is it possible to participate in funism in a solitary way, or is a community required? Are other religions compatible with Funism? Like if everyone in the group finds practicing Islam fun, then can someone be an Islamic Funist? What is the motivation for this religion? 28:30 he says the foundation of the religion is making fun of religion. Does this mean the root of 'funism' is not 'having fun', rather 'making fun'? I'd love a followup or just some more information, maybe they can add me on discord. I respect what they are trying to do, I am just struggling to comprehend. Much love.

Super interesting!