Видео

Thnx for watching! :)

Well, I would recommend reading Blood Meridian for sure, since it's not only one of the most significant books of the 20th century but one of the greatest American novels all around. Then if you like what you see, I would recommend reading No Country for Old Men and The Road and The Border Trilogy and The Passenger/Stella Maris. If you still like what you see, then I would recommend reading the other books as well. But only if you're invested. Suttree and Child of God I honestly don't think you're missing a whole lot by not reading.

@@TH3F4LC0Nx Thank you. I finished All the Pretty Horses last week and it blew my mind. It's like a poem in a novel form. So good! So I'm looking forward to more of Cormac's work.

@@asteroidmonger Happy reading! :)

Indeed. The movie holds the viewer's hand throughout, trying to lead them into the ideological outlook it wants them to hold. The movie is of course extremely one-sided. Demonize the wealthy (even though the film was made by wealthy people whose wealth was substantially increased by its proceeds), and heaven forbid there's any notion of personal accountability. Hell, the whole underlying point of the movie was just to bash Donald Trump. XD Taxi Driver was lightyears better because that film didn't give a damn what outlook the viewer came away with.

Yes, it really keeps its perspective focused on Krug and doesn't bother so much with broader depictions of repression. It's very individual-oriented. And thnx! :)

That does seem to be the way of it, historically. As a system it's supposed to be "of the people", yet it always seems to lead to cults of personality around the leaders of the party; (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Jong-Il, etc.). And like you say, the increase in cruelty is stark. I think Nabokov and Rand both saw what happened to their country pretty astutely. Just petty, vindictive people who saw an avenue to the top enslaving the populace in their own name.

@@TH3F4LC0Nx If being explicitly an allegory on russia, the name ironically wouldn't work so well. Since twasn't much of a bend, just a replacement of one despotic elite for another. Average peasant stayed without rights pretty much to the present day.

I actually have been planning on giving Barth a try. Giles Goat Boy has sort of been on my radar for a while now. :)

@TH3F4LC0Nx Giles goat boy will destroy everything you know about good books. How are not picking that up right now? Did you know DFW said Giles was the only book to make his heart beat fast?

@@williamgass9242 Oh wow, maybe I'll up the priority then. ;)

Sting was really reaching when he wrote that rhyme, lol. XD And I don't think Humbert Humbert ever shook and coughed either. XD

I haven't read Despair, but by now I kinda just anticipate some kind of narrative trickery with a Nabokov book. XD

Very cogent point about what we're seeing now in many western nations, and I certainly agree that freedom is under broad attack. It's hard to say whether Spengler's vision is truly vindicated, as it's so unfalsifiable, but the parallels are definitely there. Sadly. :(

@@TH3F4LC0Nx Not sure if you have read Robert Musil's Man Without Qualities (he is of that same era), but there is a line early on in the book that is apropos "cities like people, you can tell them by their walk."

That would explain why it reads so cinematically, I guess.

Yeah, definitely do give some more Nabokov a go; he has a very rich catalogue. :)

@@TH3F4LC0Nx His "Ada, or Ardor" is brilliant. Worth a review!

@@SmallSpaceCorgi That's actually one that I've had for years now but haven't yet read. XD

@@TH3F4LC0Nx It's almost a Nabokov version of an alt-history world, and in some ways proto-steampunk. It has airships and incest and a very different Russia and North America.

Nabokov is definitely on the Mt. Rushmore of writers for me too! :D

@@TH3F4LC0Nx nice!!!

I admired the earnestness of it and the story I found interesting, but it didn't leave a huge impression on me really.

@@TH3F4LC0Nx Maybe I should give the book a second chance, but time is the issue and I have so many other books to read and re-read. My problem with more modern books is that many fail to leave an impression or be dense, especially the ones that are trying to seem intelligent.

Well, like I say, Ahab isn't the hero, per se, but rather the antihero of the work. Ishmael is the hero, because his character is nonviolent, in contrast to Ahab's. I believe the book does vindicate Ahab's worldview though, but not his actions stemming from it.

@@TH3F4LC0Nx I see. So if the gnosticism you're saying Melville may espouse is to be taken serious, wouldn't the proper response be the "promethean" or "luciferian" one that Ahab made? Are you saying it was the fact that he hurt others that was his sin -would this be the same case if he'd gone alone to kill his demiurge? I very much find the gnostic worldview incoherent when put to scrutiny. It seems to me that if the worldview Ahab took was advocated for by Melville, then his actions are utterly just. Wouldn't the death he wrought simply be freeing the men from their illusions by "piercing that wall" between the dream of the material and the real one he wished to enter? I say all that because it's easier for me to read a criticism in Moby Dick of the Transcendentalists of Melville's day, and a latent gnosticism in the American iteration of Christianity through Ahab than it is to see an advocation for Ahab's worldview through Ishmael. Thanks for chatting!

@@TH3F4LC0Nx Ah I see. If the gnosticism you’re saying Melville is advocating for is to be taken serious, wouldn’t the “promethean” or “Luciferian” response Ahab took be completely justified? Are you saying it was simply that he brought others down with him? Would he be the hero had he gone alone? If there really is a vindictive demiurge, and the Whale was in some ways an incarnation for that (if that interpretation is to be made) then wouldn’t slaying the thing be just? If reality is simply made of masks, was he not freeing his crew by “piercing that wall” and bringing them out of their material confines? I find gnosticism incoherent and unsatisfying and that applies when I put it to scrutiny for things like this. I say/ask all of this to grapple with your interpretation because it’s far easier to me to take Ahab and his hunt -as well as other characters, as a criticism of the transcendentalists of Melville’s day, as well as the latent gnostic leaning of the American iteration of Christianity -and potentially the American experiment at large (among other things), than it is to take Ishmael as an advocation of Ahab’s worldview despite his faltering means. Thanks for chatting!

@@TH3F4LC0Nx Ah I see. If the gnosticism you’re saying Melville is advocating for is to be taken serious, wouldn’t the “promethean” or “Luciferian” response Ahab took be completely justified? Are you saying it was simply that he brought others down with him? Would he be the hero had he gone alone? If there really is a vindictive demiurge, and the Whale was in some ways an incarnation for that (if that interpretation is to be made) then wouldn’t slaying the thing be just? If reality is simply made of masks, was he not freeing his crew by “piercing that wall” and bringing them out of their material confines? I find gnosticism incoherent and unsatisfying and that applies when I put it to scrutiny for things like this. I say/ask all of this to grapple with your interpretation because it’s far easier to me to take Ahab and his hunt -as well as other characters, as a criticism of the transcendentalists of Melville’s day, as well as the latent gnostic leaning of the American iteration of Christianity -and potentially the American experiment at large (among other things), than it is to take Ishmael as an advocation of Ahab’s worldview despite his faltering means. Thanks for chatting!

@@TH3F4LC0Nx Ah I see. If the gnosticism you’re saying Melville is advocating for is to be taken serious, wouldn’t the “promethean” or “Luciferian” response Ahab took be completely justified? Are you saying it was simply that he brought others down with him? Would he be the hero had he gone alone? If there really is a vindictive demiurge, and the Whale was in some ways an incarnation for that (if that interpretation is to be made) then wouldn’t slaying the thing be just? If reality is simply made of masks, was he not freeing his crew by “piercing that wall” and bringing them out of their material confines? I find gnosticism incoherent and unsatisfying and that applies when I put it to scrutiny for things like this. I say/ask all of this to grapple with your interpretation because it’s far easier to me to take Ahab and his hunt -as well as other characters, as a criticism of the transcendentalists of Melville’s day, as well as the latent gnostic leaning of the American iteration of Christianity -and potentially the American experiment at large (among other things), than it is to take Ishmael as an advocation of Ahab’s worldview despite his faltering means. Thanks for chatting!

I really do think he only had like one good idea and then when it was played out there was just nothing left. And plus it really shouldn't take 10 years to write a mass market thriller novel either. XD

I believe the painting in the thumbnail is called Wallenstein's Camp. The painting on the cover of the book is actually an unrelated portrait I believe called "Man with the Golden Helmet" or something. And thanks! :)

@@TH3F4LC0Nx well yes the cover is Rembrandt I believe. But that other one screams Russian painting to me but I’m unsure who. Anyways. Thanks!

@@benmmarino You can find it on Wikipedia if you look up Wallenstein. That's where I found it, lol. XD

By Neal Stephenson? I have; didn't really jive with it.

@@TH3F4LC0Nx I'm wondering why I started. Are there any Neal books you like?

Can't go wrong with any of those! :)

@@TH3F4LC0Nx I would say No Country is my favorite as it’s the most enjoyable Blood Meridian is the best in terms of a literary accomplishment and The Road is just bleak. lol. Hope to read more.

I found it a rather great work. Surprisingly accessible given its age, or at least the Penguin translation was anyway. :)

@@TH3F4LC0Nx You can always count on Penguin!

He was a real master. This book is probably the weakest of his works which I've read, but man, The Chocolate War and After the First Death are books for the ages! :)

@@TH3F4LC0Nx I subbed based on this review, so you know. I haven’t seen any other RUclips channels talking about so many diverse books and topics. I can’t remember if I’ve ever listened to anyone else who shares my appreciation for Cormier. I hadn’t read his books since I was a teenager, but I think of them often. And I think you have a great voice lol 😊

@@howardroark3736 Thanks! :D

Well, personally, I'm not a particularly depressed person; I tend to just think that when all is weighed and tallied at the end of the day life is often, if not always, something of a raw deal. However, having recently read certain works on the subject of cyclical history, I actually do agree that the proliferation of such works might be indicative of an ailing society. It would seem that it could be a pattern that after a civilization reaches its zenith its members awaken to a level of self-awareness that actually has the effect of making them recoil from life and its furtherance. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing though I guess is up to everyone to decide.

⁠@@TH3F4LC0Nx I want to challenge you a little on this, if you don’t mind. If you could painlessly cease to exist right now, would you? If not, I don’t think you can sincerely argue that nonexistence is preferable to existence (because you wouldn’t choose it). For me, I don’t feel much fear of a painless death. But I am certainly bothered by the idea that I won’t be able to do things in the future. I would add that nonexistence might be preferable in some circumstances (I don’t really want to see myself become decrepit or mentally infirm), but the strange thing to me is that human beings seem to have a bigger problem with existence when it’s safest and most materially comfortable (i.e., poor people in the West happily reproduce and make more of themselves, and the same is true of poor societies broadly, but middle class Americans are more negative on their own existence and on procreation). That seems like a glitch in the human brain. I think the poorer folks have the right of it. Saying that we have a heightened self-awareness in these times is too charitable, I would argue. People who are struggling to make a living and survive are closer to the circumstances that evolution shaped us for (poverty being the condition of almost all humans and other species for almost all of history), and I think that makes them less dysfunctional and mentally ill and more in touch with reality than the average well-off westerner. I would say that we’re actually alienated from our true nature by too much prosperity. It makes the world feel unreal when survival is too easy. All the stakes of life are sucked away, and the question of to be or not to be becomes a purely theoretical exercise. A rational question, when humans, like all animals, are predominantly emotional beings and are ill-equipped to make major life decisions through pure reason. I can’t imagine choosing a spouse or a job through a pros and cons list, for instance, although that is technically more “rational” in some sense than simply choosing what you love. I’m glad if you’re not depressed (loving your content so far, so I hope you live long and prosper for my own selfish reasons 😅), but I think the trend of being higher in trait neuroticism is definitely correlated with the antinatalist view. There are some more stoic, rational types who hold this perspective, but most of the people I have heard speak in favor of it, or actually met in person, remind me all too much of the depressive policeman Matthew McConaughey played in True Detective. Like him, they use a fig leaf of reasoning to justify what their emotions already inclined them toward doing (or not doing as the case may be). The more rational we can pretend to be, the easier life is to let go of or dismiss as a value. I think that most human philosophy is formed by rational justifications that are built in complex structures to justify instinctual emotional reactions. For antinatalist arguments, this seems more transparently the case than it is for many other philosophical theories. It’s hard for me to relate to this position, though I have played with these questions in the past. But my life has been a broadly happy one. My wife is about to give birth to our firstborn now. I can’t easily imagine a world where I don’t see that as a blessing. I think fundamentally, the question of whether life is good or not is a non-rational question. It’s like asking whether coffee is good. You could try to make some calculation about the bitterness of the beans, but no serious person would say that it’s really anything other than a matter of taste. It’s harder to see that about life, but I think it’s the same. An emotional/instinctual/taste reaction.

@@howardroark3736 Well, for me personally, if I had the option to simply and painlessly cease all existence, I would probably take it, ngl. But that's just me, lol. XD I probably would agree with you though about our mentalities regarding the matter. Humans are animals, and animals are geared to survive. When you're busting your hump just trying to get by, your faculties are generally focused on what's in front of you, so you probably don't engage so much in abstract pontificating. Conversely, when people reach a certain level of comfort, they then have the luxury of indulging in greater reflection. This is likely why, like you say, lesser developed countries often have overlarge populations and less thought given to family planning, while first world, hyper decadent countries experience populational decline as life becomes, as per Schopenhauer, no longer a gift but a problem to be solved. But anyway, good luck with the kiddo! :)

@@TH3F4LC0Nx ​​⁠​⁠ I have to admit, your answer regarding your own life surprised me! I think human nature requires a sense of purpose that nature doesn’t provide on its own. If you’re interested in furthering the human race and reaching the stars, then you might find yourself motivated like Elon Musk to pop out kids and live as long as possible (and I think this purpose, furthering our species, is deeply rooted in the human spirit). If life feels more like a burden, something without purpose, then it’s natural not to want that for more people. Thank you, and I’m looking forward to meeting my little guy :)

The book really just traces a certain history of thought; many of the citations are quotes directly from the works of the authors he's scrutinizing. It's just following a pattern.

@@TH3F4LC0Nx it has been around five years since I’ve read it, but I distinctly remember his citations and “direct quotes,” being either out-of-context misrepresentations or gross extrapolations. I caught wind of it after Jordan Peterson gave it a shout out and the bias running throughout the text told me all I needed to know. I watched a video by another youtuber who systematically dissected and critiqued all the issues a while back so I didn’t feel crazy. Don’t get me wrong, fuck postmodenism-but to blame postmodernism for every contemporary issue seems a little lame. Even McCarthy was a postmodernist to some extent.

@@antonychigurh8939 There is a certain element of bias to it, definitely; (he makes Locke out to be some rational deistic saint and Kant a devious religious fanatic, even though Locke was actually far more devout than Kant ever was, etc.). But the overall arc of the book I feel is generally pretty sound. Like, we know that Hegel came off the heels of Kant, we know that Marx came off the heels of Hegel, we know that Marxism took major blows repeatedly throughout the 20th century, we know that the French intellectuals (who were Marxists nearly across the board) radically eroded the concept of objectivity with their work, we know that Marcuse pioneered critical theory to provide new avenues to keep the dream alive, etc. Does Hicks make extrapolations? Absolutely. Are they all incontestable? Probably not. But there are things there to be noted, I would say. But while I can't speak for Hicks, I'm by no means personally blaming postmodernism for every contemporary issue. Heaven knows there are way more problems in the world than that.

Lmao, if you truly believe that it is "an article of religious faith in our culture" that a giraffe is taller than an ant (an actual statement uttered by postmodern philosopher Laurie Calhoun), or if you think that a biological male competing in female sports constitutes a fair contest, then you bet your sweet ass you err. There may indeed be limits to reason, but there are things about the world which we can know incontrovertibly. But I find it quite hilarious that you label me ignorant for finding value in a "fringe" book that merely calls out blatant lunacies, but apparently see no problem with mainstream works of insanity like Foucault's, who asserted that all knowledge was "historically contingent" (while being blithely oblivious to the fact that such a claim is itself historically contingent). Just more evidence of how far postmodernism has screwed up the world.

@@TH3F4LC0Nx ad Laurie Calhoun: I can only find a second hand quote for that. Somebody alleges she had said that in a discussion. Not a good basis for a fair discussion of her actual views. Why would a contest in sports between males and females not be fair? For many sports you need certain physical properties (e.g. height). Not all people have those properties needed in certain sports, no matter if they are men or women. How is that fair? The division of competitors in sports by their sex is somewhat arbitrary. It is a social decision that we want women sports, that we, let's say, want an olympic high jump competition for women but see no need for an olympic hight jump competieon for stout men, who are also physically disadvantaged for high jump. If there are limits to reason how can you be incontrovertibly sure that there are things of which we can know that they are incontrovertibly true? How do you discern the things of which we can know incontrovertably from the things we can not know incontrovertably? What makes you think Foucault was oblivious of the fact that our/his knowledge is also historically contingent? (And we do not want to delf into such sophistery like: When you say "I know nothing." you contradict yourself. You'd have to say: "I know nothing except the one thing that I know nothing except the one thing that I know nothing except the one thing that I know nothing ...") How do you know the book is sound and doesn't completely misrepresent philosophical positions when you yourself have so little knowledge about the issue?

@@toni1140 Lol, your dismissal of the giraffe/ant quote is the result of a deep-seated knowledge that it is an indefensible proposition. Just as it is an indefensible proposition to say that a female deadlifter in competition with a male deadlifter is on average a fair competition. While it is true that there may be certain select individual instances where it might be, as regards the average, such is not the case. The division of sports into male and female leagues is not, as you claim, arbitrary, but is the logical consequence of brute facts of nature. That you may not like these facts does not erase them. If you stick your hand in a fire you will be burned every time, whether you want to be or not; if you aren't, then it would not be fire as we know it. All things being the same, the outcome to an event will not deviate. Such was common knowledge until postmodernism convinced people that knowledge at all is an illusion. But whatever dude. Believe what you want; I don't care. I think you make a stronger case for this "bad" book than my "bad" review ever could. XD

@@TH3F4LC0Nx You miss the point. My thought is: Why do we have women's competitions instead of just saying, "Well, if you happen to be a woman you might have a physical disadvantage in many sports just like many other people, who are not women, might have a physical disadvatage in certain sports."? Weigt classes or age classes seem to be more logic to give more people a chance to compete than sex classes. But has this even a lot to do with postmodernism? You deny it in another comment but I have the strong impression that you feel uncomfortable with some developments in society and blame a crudely understood postmodernism for all that. It doesn't seem you really dealt with postmodernis and made up your mind about it. You just want to fight the spectre of postmodernism and so you praise a book that supports your opinion. You have too little knowledge about philosophy in general and especially about postmodern philosophy as that you could really judge, if this book is a good book, a sound and decent analysis of postmodernism.

Interesting take. 🤔

🤖

Very valuable perspective. He definitely hastened the end, although Caesar was probably gonna "cross the Rubicon" (haha) anyway. Weird case of history actually not being written by the victor, I guess. Oh well; he still went out like a G. XD

It's a mad mad mad mad world.

Thanks, much appreciated! :)

Do consider picking up the book if you want to go deeper.

Trust me, if you've read like 50 pages of Suttree, you've pretty much read the whole thing. XD

Thanks, I try. 😘

@@TH3F4LC0Nx You could stand to try harder

Some perhaps, but I'm free to not support them. And I don't.

@@TH3F4LC0Nx you don’t matter. And you worship false idols anyhow

Wow, really deep thoughts here; I can dig! ;) I can agree that most people may subconsciously desire to be controlled. Freedom does carry a burden, and it's a burden the majority of humans at heart likely don't want. But not all of them are like that. There are some people who genuinely can shoulder that weight and genuinely want to. And I believe those people are of a superior breed. And yes, I think you're right that most fanatics probably don't even believe their own spiel. I also think that our base natures are "unenlightened", and that it takes a conscious decision to embody the higher virtues we tout so often. Our lives are crapshoots, but maybe Nietzsche was right; the person who can face the uncertainty with pride and a smile is the kind of person to be lauded. A stronger person than the norm. But given the kind of ideologies that have been so embraced in the modern world, I don't think we see too many examples of that type. Unfortunately.

​​​​​@@TH3F4LC0Nx I think you enjoy the mild controversy that books on this topic stir in the comments, but I want you to think about something: How can we define individualism when basically any person is convinced of themselves to be unique and individual, yet still abide by the same instinctual patterns, cultural prefferences and are still easily succeptable to manipulation (any conspiracies come to mind) In other words: if everything we build ourselves on is a direct influence of our environment. Were we born in different circumstances, we'd likely be different people. While I certainly respect the nitchzean way of thinking more, it is also a pitfall, as the overarching evidence is pointing towards that no one is actually unique and no one is actually free. We cannot chose what fulfills us, socially speaking. We can still strive towards these values, but we may never trully achieve them. Even in capitalism, in order to find success/fulfillment an individual must cater to the needs of a group. Supply and demand is a great thing that is crucial to a self-sustaining, stable society (unless the supply is built on commercially exploiting beliefs)... but it also proves that we can't ascend into the greater state of absolute freedom, we will always be conditioned to think and act in ways beneficial to society. Freedom, individuality and rationality don't always allign in practice.

@@mehwhatever9726 Nah, I'm really not out to stir up controversy; I just thought this was a book on an interesting topic and one which had valuable commentary to offer on an issue that's affecting our world in not particularly positive ways. But I do agree that we as people are influenced by our environment, but not wholly so. I believe people do have agency in their lives, to some extent at least. In the recognition of the factors which can impact our behavior, we have the ability to willfully alter the outcome. Or so I believe. I think there are a lot of people out there who act in ways that are decidedly unbeneficial to society. But I do recognize that it can certainly be a point of contention.

@@TH3F4LC0Nx Well, "beneficial" as in maintaining the status quo is what I mean. The idea of societies being trapped in circles of growth and degradation certainly has some substance to it, but we don't yet know the true extent of that circle for our current countries. After all, nothing can last forever, that much is true. Whether or not it is worth to postpone the inevitable collapse and following restructure, is also debatable. We COULD certainly improve capitalism by enforcing integrity and limiting corporate ability to advertize, but that would require a collapse of current system and more self-awareness than what we currently have. We also need more scientific defenitions and to learn how to apply the scientific method to everyday life, not just science itself.

He makes some connections which I found rather illuminating. :)

After giving great deliberation to your proposal, and being admittedly quite tempted to accede, I must regretfully inform you that I cannot in good conscience do so, and therefore must refrain.

That's the defense anyway; nothing is ever Marx's fault, just the many, *many* people who have apparently (and lethally) misunderstood him. But if Marx has been so direly misinterpreted, then I would say at the very least that he's guilty of poor communication. And as for my ego, well, there's no greater counteragent to collectivism than a person with a healthy sense of self I guess.

@TH3F4LC0Nx Excuses. Do people blame Jesus for poor communication? Or do you think regular people are super smart? Why wouldn't you just assume people cant read? Have you had a conversation with people lately? They don't understand basic logic.

@@williamgass9242 Well, Jesus never wrote anything down himself, but as for the people who did, good heavens yes there's poor communication. That's why there are umpteen denominations, and also why, as I've said, religion and government should not overlap. If the same held true for Marxism, there wouldn't be an issue. But that can't be. It's a glaring double standard to point fingers at Christianity but treat Marx like teflon. As many catastrophes as it's led to, and if people are really too dumb to do it right, then maybe they just ought not to try.

@TH3F4LC0Nx Again, Marx isn't Marxism. Also I was pointing a finger at Christianity because you're pointing a finger at a guy who didn't do anything wrong, is in fact a great thinker and probably an interesting guy.

Well I guess he got that right.

@TH3F4LC0Nx it's in his textbook about economics called Das capital. A lot of similar ideas to wealth of nations.

Maybe not, but they sure approved of him.

@@TH3F4LC0Nx And they seemed like real smart readers and good people, didn't they? Not!

@@TH3F4LC0Nx I recently read in “The Social and Political Writing of Marx” (auth?) descriptions straight from Marx’s writings about what would happen if the jackass anarchists get control of the socialist international. He very clearly and accurately predicted the Soviet Union and its crude leveling and barracks communism. His books were also banned in the Soviet Union.

@@JHimminy That is interesting, but the Soviet Union didn't have much to do with the Socialist International; it sprang from Marx's own writings, and I doubt he predicted such an outcome coming from his own work. It's not that Marx himself intended genocide, but rather that his work has historically provided a veritable license for such to be committed. And I have heard that certain of Marx's works pertaining to the Russian communes were censored in the Soviet Union, but on the whole Marx's work formed the core of much of their curriculum.

@@TH3F4LC0Nx people don’t need licenses to kill others, and they’ll hang their “reasons” on anything available. The French Revolution didn’t require Marx, but I imagine you don’t know much about that bloody affair.

Marx took Hegel's dialectic and "turned it on its head". Hegel, a theist, saw history as driven by a "World Spirit"; Marx, an atheist, saw history in materialistic terms.

@@TH3F4LC0Nx so you think hegel is reasonable?

@@williamgass9242 Not particularly.

Indeed, and Hicks does discuss Kant's religiousness.