I believe that the people who are saying philosophy is to political are those who want to stay in the matrix of common life and want to not think of the existential void outside of said matrix. Basically, “Shut up, I don’t wanna think”
If you say, “Teach me philosophy but leave your politics out of it!” You might as well say, “Teach me math(s) but leave all those NUMBERS out of it!” It’s an inherently ignorant position to adopt, akin to stating, “I don’t understand what philosophy is, but I claim the right to define it regardless!” It’s just DUMB! Sorry . . .
@@WisecrackEDUA few months ago Wisecrack put out a short which was politically biased and it got such a strong backlash they deleted it and now they're addressing it obliquely. I was one who was very critical about it. Perhaps a subset of people may be irritated that philosophy deals with politics, but i think the majority were against the short because it was *so obviously* politically biased. I think most people expect that a deep and nuanced philosophical understanding of politics will bring someone closer to centrism, so spouting obvious political bias devalues the philosophy
@@BMTroubleUThe vast majority of the most influential philosophers in the last two centuries were waaaaay left of center. Have you heard of the French revolution? Have you heard of the Frankfurt school? You lack a basic understanding of philosophy if you think it leads folks "centrism"
@@thomaspollack7451 that's not a very charitable comment, nor is it very enlightened my friend. The argumentum ad populum fallacy certainly isnt convincing. Now I may be wrong. I'm open to that. I'm coming at this from a perspective that, as voltaire wrote- "truth has not the name of a party". If the best results come from using ideas from both sides of the political aisle in their proper context, then I take this to mean an unbiased person will gravitate towards the centre. At the very least a philosopher who understands both sides should be less likely to become a political extremist.
@@BMTroubleU This perspective is naive. The more "between both sides" a philosophical argument lands politically does not logically make the argument any more sound. "Left" and "Right" are subjective and USA left-wing is Western Europe's Right-wing. Political positions are derived from our philosophy. Our politics are biased towardsa our philosophy, not the other way round.
Straw man argument. There is nothing wrong that philosophy affects on politics. Politically biased philosophy is the problem. Critical theory is philosophy, but when the critical view on critical theori is absent, the theory becomes political speach. We can create new consept to create new identity groups. In philosophy it should be exanined, if that has greated better society and improved living standards. We can also pretend that the current majority is minority politics or its potential should be larger and therefore the current thing should not be criticed and actually we critic the curren thing when criticing the previus system. Whitch is exacty against the spirit of philosophy.
That, along with just how arbitrary a label "political" is for a lot of people. For some it seems to boil down to, "Other people talking about their beliefs or ideals is political, I'm just talking common sense about how the world should be."
I'd argue too that philosophy is inherently political, because it's inherently social. If philosophy needs to communicate itself in order to exist, and especially if the purpose is to communicate with others about ideas, then it's going to have social and political consequences because ideas change how people act. There is no such thing as apolitical philosophy.
This is quite literally one of the primary strategies of reactionaries: acknowledging that these subjects are INHERENTLY political goes against their interests because their worldview is predicated on notion that the current status quo is NATURAL, and GOOD. So if someone indicates that some social hierarchy is a result of political choice, it would threaten it's existence because if it's not natural, then those choices could now be questioned, which they do not want because they benefit from the existence of those hierarchies.
As pointed out in past Wisecrack videos "stop being political" translates to "shut up, don't make me think, I don't want to hear it" people get taken out of their comfort zones and they don't like that.
And I’d bet that lots of the people saying “doing get political” have no problem with people invoking religious argument for their politics, even though religion is just philosophy that would rather invoke some supernatural authority instead of actually defending its positions.
Nah I get outside of my bubble and listen to leftist videos like this. I just think they are wrong and stupid. How often do you step outisde your bubble?
@@Ren33469 I just feel sorry for those people, it's such a messed up chaotic world, it's all so overwhelming, it makes sense to want to shut down one's brain and just go with the flow, for some people it's all they can do to maintain their sanity.
@KC esoteric is the opposite of mundane and profane, every form of knowledge is precious on its own, if this knowledge is out of reach from the simple minds that doesn't make it any less valuable. If it can be studied, if it can be worked upon and more ideas can be derived from it, then it's an absolute good regardless of the "usefulness" in the material world.
It's a really "shut up and dribble" moment that we're having everywhere as more people wake up to things that need to be urgently addressed and those of us that want to sleep a little longer yell at them to be quiet.
Me too but I really wanted to major in math and physics. Switched majors because there was no way I was taking those classes at a community college after Good Will Hunting-ing their entire curriculum. Even logic classes aren’t enough, I did last week’s Symbolic Logic homework in like two minutes while sleep deprived and I got it all correct, I’m going to have to pester the math department until they give me permission to take a graduate level class.
Philosophy - especially ethic, morality, and existentialism - changed my life. Philosophy helped me grow as reading books is just a conversation with someone way smarter than you and with an expertise in subjects you ask as a novice person.
One of my favorite quotes is "The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water." -John W. Gardner
About running for governor of California, Upton Sinclair said: “it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
The thing is, we do philosophy every day. It's just so thoroughly baked into our culture and media and lifestyles that we don't recognize it as its own philosophy anymore. That's why we need philisophers because they look at the world and see a throughline that is so easily missed. And it's only when we accept that everything we do is philosophical that we can then ask the scariest question a philosopher can ask. "What if things could be different?"
@@NWPaul72 Because the types of people who tend to become philosophers are also the types of people who don't live in society the same way as most other people. Most are fairly comfortable ivory tower academia types who write in inaccessible ways to the layman, the people who tend to need philosophy.
@@kbomb234 hmm, kinda limits the utility of philosophizing, doesn't it? Do you suppose that's down to the perversity of human nature, or is that more of a natural law, like gravity?
@@NWPaul72 Even simpler than that. If you have the time to wonder about why the world is the way it is, you have to money/luxury to do so. More so if you make a career out of philosophy. What would philosophy look like if more people had the time and money to reflect?
@@shroom8914 Just like it leads to things like civil rights movements and the establishment of fairer systems. Philosophy is a fundamentally neutral concept. The ideas expressed through philosophy are what create problems
I am loving this new, more philosophical approch to the videos. I hope that as a society, we don't need that we need to get our philosophy by way of Iron Man.
This was a fantastic video. I had to watch it twice to fully absorb and appreciate it all. It really gave me something to intellectually chew on, and I love that! I think that how you surmise the value of philosophy with the plumber analasys is not only apt and accurate, but probably the single best explanation I've ever heard of the value of philosophy.
Philosophy booklist? Philosophy books which you would like to read? Well, if you are serious about that really arduous endeavor, that would be a long list of books, a small mountain, and you will be frustrated by many because so many are not understandable... And by saying that I am not implying anything about your intelligence, I am just saying that some are incredibly complicated without good reason besides maybe because those who wrote those books thought that only professional philosophers will read those books... And champion in that is metaphysics... I have studied philosophy, but honestly, I think that almost the whole metaphysics can be thrown in the trash, that is if you are not trying to write a history of philosophy. And even then, there are enormous problems...For instance, Immanuel Kant... Try reading Critique of Pure Reason, and you will see what I mean... Without a proper teacher, professor, that is unreadable.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 Metaphysics is indeed the most nebulous and inexact sphere of philosophy... but that is also why I love it. I like to just speculate (as opposed to know), sometimes. And the idea of contemplating that the whole of existence is a certain way tends to be more intriguing to me than this or that fact.
Long time viewer here that hasn't subscribed until now. Your videos have changed somehow. Maybe it's the tone or the themes, or maybe it's just me, but I enjoy them so much more now. Keep evolving, Wisecrack!
Philosophy is intrinsically attached to ethics, which is intrinsically attached to politics. Anyone saying you need to keep politics out of philosophy doesn't understand either one.
This was a great video! I'd love to see you talk about the philosophy of Berné Brown and tackle vulnerability as an aid to social connection and emotional well being. I've expereinced personal growth and the value of living more in alignment with her ideas and think your insight on her work would be interesting.
I have a degree in philosophy and I think I agree with Adorno (sp?). I think this is also the best application of philosophy as well. The way I use my physiology degree is exactly how you guys explain Adorno sees philosophy. Working in the city government where a lot of system and processes are followed without much thought to why, having a philosophical approach to the system has allowed me to find solutions to problems or even create new concepts and systems to replace old ones. My philosophy degree helped/helps me think outside of the box everyone else is thinking in. I’m in a constant pursuit of trying to better my city (city of Toronto in Canada) and I do it the way Adorno describes.
I consider basically every discipline to be political. When I studied history back in college, it was clear to me that we weren’t just reiterating major events to preserve the past. We were drawing conclusions from history and our construction of it to better understand and shape the world.
I disagree that mathematics or for that matter any of the natural sciences are political, unless you count social relations between scientists / "office politics", or that there are ways to politicize any discipline. Admittably, the latter is very common, but I've the feeling that the people who do that already presuppose that "all disciplines are politicized".
@@Mattias_the_unimpressive But... they are. You are, disingenuously so, reducing the field to its body of knowledge by dismissing the scientist as basically accessory to the knowledge. The knowledge will be there no matter who is discovering it. The reality is you need both the field and the knowledge to talk about science: the knowledge doesn't come from thin air. That body of knowledge is shaped by the politics of the field around it, the idea underlying your assumption that science (including math) is moving in this linear, unstoppable and pure fashion that would remain the same no matter the circumstances. The way that body of knowledge developed is science. This is like that the people that say science doesn't have a style, schools of thoughts or no personality whatsoever. These days is a bit more complicated, but I can read a math paper without knowing the authors, acknowledgements or even the references (then we will assume the references exists and are correct) and describe the school of thought they come, the origin and the style of their methods and I can even have a word or two about the reviewers attitude towards the paper. And Im not talking about the words, the paragraph used, I'm talking about the actual math. I can distinguish between a Discrete Differential Geometry (my area of expertise) paper from the US and one from Germany just by reading the body of the paper. Same thing for current Deep Learning papers. The fact that a 'school of thought' can be found in math is proof there are externalities to the knowledge. Those difference have been shaped by something, and although i have no space to continue here thats a starting point to understand how the field and the body of knowledge are part of a greater thing, and therefore susceptible to politics. The story of Ramanujan comes to mind just to name something but The Manhattan Project would be the best example of how politics shape sciences for generations to come. So yeah, presupposing all fields are political is the actual correct assumption. Otherwise, you are missing an important lens to judge the field, its methods and its history and how it impacted its body of knowledge.
@@lobachevscki I think I see your point, that all science is in the least affected by some schools of thought and probably also the people behind it whether they know it or not (I'm almost sure you too has seen veritasium's videos about how mathematicians used to hate the idea of complex numbers... if not it's a good watch), but as you say in paragraph three: "..., and also susceptible to politics". Why not write "susceptible to scientific scools of thought"? I think it's because we both agree that those are not the same thing! Few people actually think any scientist is "perfect", but there is a difference between just thinking that any disciple is run by people with individual cognitive variations and biases and thoughts that are more or less affected by thoughts they've had previously on political issues... and reasoning that "science is already political, so consequently it can't actually be policized". The latter argument has been used to justify actual politicization. Also, I think you shouldn't accuse people of being disingenuous, even if my argument can be interpreted as "[disingenuously] reducing the field to its body of knowledge by dismissing the scientist as basically accessory to the knowledge." ... do you genuinely believe that my actual intent was to be disingenuous?
@@Mattias_the_unimpressive 1- I didn't accuse anybody of being disingenuous, I pointed that your argument is, which is different. I see the point of the direct language and i will extend an apology in that case, but I strongly believe the argument is disingenuous and it should be called out as such for the reasons explained below. 2- "Why not write "susceptible to scientific schools of thought"? " because transitively, Schools of Thoughts are influenced by politics. Think about this: do you think people in developing countries, specially the Global South, can do science in the same way people in the US or Germany, France the UK can? if so, aren't their methodologies susceptible to the environment they are in and how that environment conditions their decision making? If we were talking more specifically about Cuba, there is a huge incentive for scientist to pursue scientific goals based on the methods and justifications the government will find suitable, and those are purely ideological. And this applies to developed countries in any case but for different reasons, see The Manhattan Project. You can argue the body of knowledge we achieved from that era would have been reached at some point, but we didnt, it was completely conditioned by the war effort (and The Manhattan Project is just the most famous example). There is a whole history about how nuclear physics fought to not be influenced by the war effort and then the Cold War to actually expand to what we have this day, that was from actual activism to reinterpreting a lot of results and methods. One simple difference on that timeline would have led to a completely different development leading in turn to a completely different understanding of science today. And that's why I think is disingenuous, and more over: dangerous. The Nazi's thought science was not political. White supremacist thinks science is not political. Communist were in the other extreme, regarding science as purely political therefore dismissing results (which is a political statement). The body of knowledge is a thing, but that's not the only thing that science is about. Methods and development are science, otherwise, gassing people in the name of science would be considered ethical.
For what it's worth, I find these videos insightful in how I see myself and the society around us. You may not be teaching in a traditional academic settings but I'm still learning about philosophy, and I find it to be enriching to my life. At the end of the day, if you got someone to question and think, I think you've succeeded at philosophy.
I am currently reading "Simulations" by Baudrillard. The state of everything, hypernormalisation, etc. I believe it is the most relevant philosophical text of our time. Love your videos BTW. ❤❤❤
i loved it when you said "if you have a burst pipe, you call a plumber. when you have a burst or broken concept, call a philosopher". it was a real 'say it with me gang' kind of moment. and equally so, the fact that philosophy is the study of finding all the points in which disagreement can occur (i dont know if im referencing right, but alas), it is a perfect way of seeing it. because, in a way, philosophy sheds light on the downsides on particular choices and viewpoints, and giving us every opportunity to go with the lesser subjective evil.
My interest in deep-diving into moral philosophy was triggered in 2003 shortly after the torture revelations here in the US, that Abu Ghraib wasn't a singular instance but there was a whole CIA extrajudicial detention and enhanced interrogation program. But then what happened was every other Republican (including my Dad) started trying to assert that torture was acceptable under the circumstances, or that waterboarding was not acutally torture. (Some people got voluntarily waterboarded to show how it's _not that bad._ It turns out it's that bad.) To be, the _torture is evil_ thing was a no brainer. It's a thing that villains do in action movies to show they're villainous, or that the good guy does to show that he's a loose cannon and willing to cross the line. It also made be ask _are we the baddies_ well before I knew of the Mitchell and Webb bit. And I realized I didn't actually have the tools or language with which to express that torture is on the _wrong_ side of the _right vs. wrong_ spectrum. Soon enough, I learned that Republicans who were okay with torture were signaling loyalty over principle. Anyone who wasn't a part of the movement was against the movement, one of the known symptoms of fascism. So yes, it's totally political.
I guess I’m the only one that has valued the last 6 months of videos above the others… 🤷♂️ I have liked, saved/downloaded, and sent many of the newer videos. Keep it up man! I’ve enjoyed them 👏
I don’t know how one would separate philosophy from politics and day to day life. In the end is it not but our beliefs on things that we structure our society on and around? Keeping philosophy out of day to life seems a lot like trying to keep math out of science, a dream for those that don’t like or understand it but not really possible,
@@ComradeDt Depending on who you ask, it *is* a science. While there are some who would disagree with that, I think you would find very few if any who would say it has nothing to do with science.
@@ComradeDt even if you take a “soft” science you’ll have to keep data from testing. So ya there literally is not gold of science where decent math skills are not required
I've recently stopped my obsession with philosophy and philosopher teachings, and switched over to different forms of psychology. This page does not disappoint with reading my mind lol.
I'm curious why you think there's a meaningful difference between the two. One is about how people think, the other is about how people should think. At a fundamental level, understanding either one requires understanding of both.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 nowadays philosophy is dead and almost frowned upon. Well atleast trying to apply any previous mentalities that went with why or how these people became "philosophers". Just like he said, anyone can sit and think pretty much. Now that everyone's entitled to their own opinions and the ability to post it more than ever...I've started to focus on psychological teachings and such, a lil more once I started to realize it. To say there is no meaningful difference is a little odd in my opinion. But I could see how it could need explaining to understand a perspective.
To 08:55 You're not missing the point, but a more basic definition is possible. Philosophy may occur when the application of nature on the mind continues to be applied to the mind itself. For example, consider a hunter who makes a trap in prehistoric times. The hunter knows that the deeper he buries the trap, the more damage it will do to his prey because he knows that objects accelerate as they fall. However, the knowledge of acceleration during falling is an application of nature on the hunter's mind, while the hunter's repeated application of this on his own mind results in a conclusion. In this case, we can say that the hunter has a philosophical position on gravity. Therefore, philosophy serves as a mechanism for disciplined imagination, which allows it to adhere to what you say.
Thanks for your “transparency” lol I confess I watch your vids right before bed and unsurprisingly fail asleep but I’m probably responsible for like 20+ views because I don’t want to miss anything and want to understand any new concepts. Thanks for the quality content!
I always wondered this too. Even more, i cant imagine spending my entire life thinking about what life and its meaning/non-meaning as opposed to just simply experiencing it. Why take everything apart when you can just live it, ya know ? Definitely still interesting to learn about different philosophies in short form on YT, nonetheless !
An exploded view of a car is interesting and educational, working on a car is challenging and rewarding, driving a car is fun and necessary. Why not do whatever seems optimal in the moment?
I really needed this video today. I’ve been struggling to write a paper about the institutional university because I’m in burn it all down mode. This was useful-because I need this paper to graduate next week lol
I see philosophy's utility/value in its practice. Not so much that philosophy should only be valued as the thing itself, but that philosophy should be valued for the language/context and tools the "practice" of philosophy offer's those who partake. There is a social utility in the shared language, political utility in the critical thought/contemplative nature of the study, and spiritual utility in giving yourself the philosophical framework that enables living of a life that fulfills you. That said, while it opens access to those utilities, the true value of philosophy (imo of course) is in the tools it puts in your hands, not the house you build with them.
@@blist14ant So you're saying that people who live the contemplative life and develop concepts/tools to share with others who expand on said concepts and tools are what took us from being nomads to being industrious societies? Thank you for agreeing with me?
My hot take: Hard Sciences is to math as political ideals are to philosophy. That is, science is applied math and politics is applied philosophy. But the study of pure maths exists for its own sake just like the study of pure philosophy is great for its own sake as well!
Thanks for that nuanced video. To answer your last question: I believe, that language models can‘t replace philosophical thinking, because philosophy always (even in an analytical sense, as shown in this video) implies that you set yourself in a conscious relationship with a specific problem.
Having been following Wisecrack since Jared dropped the Bioshock video essay (which was also pretty politically themed) and still rocking my 8-bit Philosophy Tee I love the direction this channel has gone in, and I love the deep social commentary and the media analysis.
Out of curiosity, have you guys ever considered doing episodes on the philosophies found in various tabletop role playing adventure games? There is a lot of them so it could easily give you a many of subjects and genres to cover with some having overlapping themes. Would make over 10 videos. Besides the obvious d&d and 40K there is also the original cyberpunk, starfinder, world of darkness brands, scion and... well there is a lot.
I would lose my mind if they talked about Mage: the Ascension. There’s also a whole podcast dedicated to that game specifically on RUclips if you’re interested in it
I'd love to see you do a video on the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius' and the concept of philosophy being used for personal growth and development of one's moral character and values, as it ties into this video's concept on the utility of philosophy but attacks the question from an entirely different perspective not touched on here. Furthermore, it takes philosophy out of academia and makes it accessible. It becomes less about intellectual rigor and logical argumentation, and more about how one reflects and self-analyzes to yield insight.
Isn't that what he talked about "being alone in a room, thinking? Stoicism developed contemporary with Neo Platonism, so It's not exactly a radical departure from Classical philosophy. Also, Marcus Aurelius was the worlds most powerful political leader of his time, so it's funny to bring him up as an objection to philosophy being "political". I know that you didn't specificaly say that, but there is a tendency to strip Stoicism of it's historical and cultural context in it's current popular adoption by lifestyle Influencers. Like how it was in vogue for Boomer investors to read Sun Tzu.
Jordan Peterson is actually a symptom of the problems with philosophy. Anyone, including Jordan, can claim to be a philosopher, and there isn’t much those with philosophy credentials can do about it unless they decide to knuckle down and try to make up their minds and achieve consensus. The thing about consensus is, when someone does challenge the consensus, which is encouraged, they have to back it up. This is an effective way to cut the bullcrap, and probably the only one.
I feel like most people that complain about something becoming "too political" are really just saying that they know problems exist and recognize that the solutions don't match their personal political stance but are unwilling to argue the point either due to a lack of knowledge or fear that their true beliefs will alienate them if said outloud cause those beliefs are, probably, terrible. Also, a video around Analytic Philosophy would be awesome! Just saying.
Pretty much. Either that or they just jump back to the defeatist neoliberal argument "this is the best its going to be and doing anything about would make things worse."
Philosophy is like art. It can be done for its own sake like fine art. It can also applied to solve real world issues like some artists become graphic designers, fashion designers, architects etc
another great basic starting place of plato/ so-crates is the necessity of agreement on the definition of terms. this does not presuppose agreement on the conclusions reached. it simply makes conversation possible
I’m a philosophy major but I really wanted to major in mathematics and physics. I just transferred under the philosophy major because I had already studied the entire community college math curriculum on my own and didn’t want to take the classes there especially if they had to be in-person. Even Symbolic Logic is too easy. I shouldn’t be able to do all the homework problems in like five minutes while sleep deprived and still get them all right.
Philosophy, to me, means the pursuit of knowledge with the objective of learning how wrong I am. Letting yourself be biased in favor of one perspective over another diminishes whatever result is reached.
I like the idea of Czech philosopher Miroslav Petricek, who said that philosophy is about yet unthinkable. So we can't really say what philosophy is here for now, because we don't know yet, but we will see, as in the past it discovered (or "laid down foundations") for various scientific disciplines, new ethical possibilities for society/slaves/serfs/women, for evolutions in politics, for modern logic etc.. We don't know what it brings next, but that's the exciting part!
It’s arguable that metaphysics has largely been perfected into what we call science so philosophy is more useful in the moral and artistic realm. Another perspective is that pure philosophy provides novel concepts that have the potential to be applied to more specific real-world studies like politics. But they need not be just like pure mathematics.
Give us the Philosophy of Mario!!! Also, bring back 8 Bit Philosophy!!!!! (I know that series won't ever be coming back, along with Thug Notes and Earthling Cinema, but it was good!! Maybe bring them back with some info spliced in some how or a segment at the end adding more info and detail that was skipped in the original videos!!! I don't know, i'm spitballing here...) keep up the geeat work as always Mike and crew!!!!
"That's why it's always worth having a few philosophers around the place. One minute it's all is truth beauty and is beauty truth, and does a falling tree in the forest make a sound if there's no one there to hear it, and then just when you think they're going to start dribbling one of 'em says, incidentally, putting a thirty-foot parabolic reflector on a high place to shoot the rays of the sun at an enemy's ships would be a very interesting demonstration of optical principles." -- Terry Pratchett
7:26 I try to throw philosophical thought onto my family and friends way of life, to try to act more mindful about their actions. If that’s doing philosophy wrong then I’m doing it wrong 7:41 oh maybe not, I’m trying to go against the consumeristic mindset that the capitalistic government is pushing on us
I have to say my train of thought got completely derailed at the end of this, and now I just want Wisecrack to do a Philosophy of Super Mario Bros, if for no other reason than that Michael said it wouldn't happen. 😆
I think a major pitfall with how philosophy is approached is how some folks presuppose an ideology / argument's validity without really engaging in the real-life consequences of adopting such a set of positions. This can be seen in basically any economic system discussed on Reddit, as well as more classic examples like religious fundamentalism/dogma, or how a country's people should be governed. Additionally, an argument can be internally consistent, but have no tether to reality. We can sit and chat about theoretical governmental models all we want, or whether the mind is separate from the brain, but until we have a way to TEST AND VALIDATE these ideas, everything and anything we do is simply guesswork. Philosophy is indeed useful in the sense that it's worthwhile to recognize faulty lines of thinking and arguing, but it is not a replacement for scientific inquiry and testing. That's not to say science supersedes and replaces philosophy, but to recognize they address different aspects of reality and life.
philosophy is the alpha subject, all the other subjects (science, math, art, love, death, psychology, politics, religion, society, language etc.) are nothing but subdomains of philosophy. Philosohy is "the bigger picture" that tries to examine all of human knowledge to determine what that means (or could mean) to humanity. It doesn't make any sense that politics would be left out, especially considering that politics is closely tied with ethics...
I think there's an interesting moment in the Zizek-Peterson debate where Peterson asks Zizek a question along the lines of "given that you're such an intelligent and prolific theorist, why is it that you have yet to produce a systematic exposition of your ideas, a certain Zizekianism, if you will?"- which is a question that kind of gets to the heart of the idea that philosophy should be productive in a rhetorical proving-everyone-else-before-you-wrong sense, that its movement as a discipline should be linear instead of what it is, a lateral movement where philosophers radicalise those who came before them. Hegel radicalised Kant, Zizek radicalised Lacan etc etc.
Thank you so much for being honest about sourcing Wikipedia. It can still be a valuable tool for researching information whose truth value is not contentious or difficult to obtain. I stopped loving my wife after our first child.
Here is a fun fact from the world of construction trades: plumbers are one of the fastest shrinking trades due to aging practitioners, despite it being a six-figure job anywhere across the country.
I'm so relieved and thankful that you mentioned Deleuze and Guattari, the only ones who seemed to understand what philosophy can do. Could AI do something similar? I'm not too sure about that, it would likely establish functions which science does but again with AI, who knows, it wouldn't be a negative thing regardless
I have to explain politics to high schoolers every semester. The best simplified explanation I have is: Politics isn't equipped to handle true/false claims. Politics is about how groups of people collectively go about solving percieved issues in the society around them. Sometimes the groups doing the solving are larger. Sometimes they are smaller. However, you don't go asking a politician what is true.
I hope Chipotle decides to sponsor you, you're amazing little balls of awesome and if I haven't told you before you're my absolute very RUclips channel and I hope everybody gives you high fives.
To uncover a lie for Michael, I have been lying to myself about how well I have been handling my mental health. I was too afraid to face it head on, but my friends have been helping me let go of my protective facade. Thank you Wikipedia for your learned wisdom and for making Michael throw me into this dare
"Be honest about something that you've been lying about." I can't think of any lies right now because I talk to people as little as possible. . . . Or DO I?
Get 25% off Blinkist premium and enjoy 2 memberships for the price of 1! Start your 7-day free trial by clicking here: www.blinkist.com/wisecrack
I did imagine society pegging philosophy
"shut up and think bout shit"
I believe that the people who are saying philosophy is to political are those who want to stay in the matrix of common life and want to not think of the existential void outside of said matrix.
Basically, “Shut up, I don’t wanna think”
If you say, “Teach me philosophy but leave your politics out of it!” You might as well say, “Teach me math(s) but leave all those NUMBERS out of it!” It’s an inherently ignorant position to adopt, akin to stating, “I don’t understand what philosophy is, but I claim the right to define it regardless!” It’s just DUMB! Sorry . . .
RATM?
My philosophy professor answered the question best when he said "It isn't what philosophy does for you, it's what it does to you."
That's super well put.
@@WisecrackEDUA few months ago Wisecrack put out a short which was politically biased and it got such a strong backlash they deleted it and now they're addressing it obliquely. I was one who was very critical about it. Perhaps a subset of people may be irritated that philosophy deals with politics, but i think the majority were against the short because it was *so obviously* politically biased. I think most people expect that a deep and nuanced philosophical understanding of politics will bring someone closer to centrism, so spouting obvious political bias devalues the philosophy
@@BMTroubleUThe vast majority of the most influential philosophers in the last two centuries were waaaaay left of center. Have you heard of the French revolution? Have you heard of the Frankfurt school?
You lack a basic understanding of philosophy if you think it leads folks "centrism"
@@thomaspollack7451 that's not a very charitable comment, nor is it very enlightened my friend. The argumentum ad populum fallacy certainly isnt convincing.
Now I may be wrong. I'm open to that.
I'm coming at this from a perspective that, as voltaire wrote- "truth has not the name of a party".
If the best results come from using ideas from both sides of the political aisle in their proper context, then I take this to mean an unbiased person will gravitate towards the centre. At the very least a philosopher who understands both sides should be less likely to become a political extremist.
@@BMTroubleU This perspective is naive. The more "between both sides" a philosophical argument lands politically does not logically make the argument any more sound.
"Left" and "Right" are subjective and USA left-wing is Western Europe's Right-wing.
Political positions are derived from our philosophy. Our politics are biased towardsa our philosophy, not the other way round.
People complaining about philosophy being political are like people complaining about "Rage Against the Machine" being political.
Incredible comp.
Listen man the machine is my computer and i hate it ok?
@@Yellow.1844 relatable 😂
Came here to say this 😂
Straw man argument. There is nothing wrong that philosophy affects on politics. Politically biased philosophy is the problem.
Critical theory is philosophy, but when the critical view on critical theori is absent, the theory becomes political speach.
We can create new consept to create new identity groups. In philosophy it should be exanined, if that has greated better society and improved living standards.
We can also pretend that the current majority is minority politics or its potential should be larger and therefore the current thing should not be criticed and actually we critic the curren thing when criticing the previus system. Whitch is exacty against the spirit of philosophy.
Willing to bet the "stop talking politics" were people that didn't like that *their* politics weren't been exemplified or lauded.
This is . . . very likely.
That, along with just how arbitrary a label "political" is for a lot of people. For some it seems to boil down to, "Other people talking about their beliefs or ideals is political, I'm just talking common sense about how the world should be."
I'd argue too that philosophy is inherently political, because it's inherently social. If philosophy needs to communicate itself in order to exist, and especially if the purpose is to communicate with others about ideas, then it's going to have social and political consequences because ideas change how people act.
There is no such thing as apolitical philosophy.
Its kinda strange that the people who need to hear about political philosophy the most are the ones who are not willing to hear it.
This is quite literally one of the primary strategies of reactionaries: acknowledging that these subjects are INHERENTLY political goes against their interests because their worldview is predicated on notion that the current status quo is NATURAL, and GOOD. So if someone indicates that some social hierarchy is a result of political choice, it would threaten it's existence because if it's not natural, then those choices could now be questioned, which they do not want because they benefit from the existence of those hierarchies.
As pointed out in past Wisecrack videos "stop being political" translates to "shut up, don't make me think, I don't want to hear it" people get taken out of their comfort zones and they don't like that.
And I’d bet that lots of the people saying “doing get political” have no problem with people invoking religious argument for their politics, even though religion is just philosophy that would rather invoke some supernatural authority instead of actually defending its positions.
Nah I get outside of my bubble and listen to leftist videos like this. I just think they are wrong and stupid.
How often do you step outisde your bubble?
@@Ren33469 I just feel sorry for those people, it's such a messed up chaotic world, it's all so overwhelming, it makes sense to want to shut down one's brain and just go with the flow, for some people it's all they can do to maintain their sanity.
@KC esoteric is the opposite of mundane and profane, every form of knowledge is precious on its own, if this knowledge is out of reach from the simple minds that doesn't make it any less valuable. If it can be studied, if it can be worked upon and more ideas can be derived from it, then it's an absolute good regardless of the "usefulness" in the material world.
It's a really "shut up and dribble" moment that we're having everywhere as more people wake up to things that need to be urgently addressed and those of us that want to sleep a little longer yell at them to be quiet.
Thanks. I'm a philosophy student feeling burnt out, and I needed this.
Glad we could help a little bit!
Me too but I really wanted to major in math and physics. Switched majors because there was no way I was taking those classes at a community college after Good Will Hunting-ing their entire curriculum. Even logic classes aren’t enough, I did last week’s Symbolic Logic homework in like two minutes while sleep deprived and I got it all correct, I’m going to have to pester the math department until they give me permission to take a graduate level class.
I want/need a "As long as there's sh*t we'll need plumbers, as long as there's bullsh*t we'll need philosophers" bumper sticker.
Make it a T-shirt. I'll buy at least two.
Make this merch
Blast from the past, give-me give-me give-me, I need, I need, I need!!! What about Bob?
why ask why? Why not?
Philosophy - especially ethic, morality, and existentialism - changed my life. Philosophy helped me grow as reading books is just a conversation with someone way smarter than you and with an expertise in subjects you ask as a novice person.
Never thought about it that way, but then again, I don’t really read books. I might use that myself
nice
"way smarter than you"
Speak for yourself
One of my favorite quotes is "The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water." -John W. Gardner
About running for governor of California, Upton Sinclair said: “it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
The thing is, we do philosophy every day. It's just so thoroughly baked into our culture and media and lifestyles that we don't recognize it as its own philosophy anymore. That's why we need philisophers because they look at the world and see a throughline that is so easily missed. And it's only when we accept that everything we do is philosophical that we can then ask the scariest question a philosopher can ask. "What if things could be different?"
If we recognize a need for philosophers, why is it so difficult to acknowledge the need to listen to them?
@@NWPaul72 Because the types of people who tend to become philosophers are also the types of people who don't live in society the same way as most other people. Most are fairly comfortable ivory tower academia types who write in inaccessible ways to the layman, the people who tend to need philosophy.
@@kbomb234 hmm, kinda limits the utility of philosophizing, doesn't it? Do you suppose that's down to the perversity of human nature, or is that more of a natural law, like gravity?
@@NWPaul72 Even simpler than that. If you have the time to wonder about why the world is the way it is, you have to money/luxury to do so. More so if you make a career out of philosophy. What would philosophy look like if more people had the time and money to reflect?
@@shroom8914 Just like it leads to things like civil rights movements and the establishment of fairer systems. Philosophy is a fundamentally neutral concept. The ideas expressed through philosophy are what create problems
I am loving this new, more philosophical approch to the videos. I hope that as a society, we don't need that we need to get our philosophy by way of Iron Man.
This was a fantastic video. I had to watch it twice to fully absorb and appreciate it all. It really gave me something to intellectually chew on, and I love that!
I think that how you surmise the value of philosophy with the plumber analasys is not only apt and accurate, but probably the single best explanation I've ever heard of the value of philosophy.
I'd love a philosophy booklist from you.
Same
Philosophy booklist? Philosophy books which you would like to read? Well, if you are serious about that really arduous endeavor, that would be a long list of books, a small mountain, and you will be frustrated by many because so many are not understandable... And by saying that I am not implying anything about your intelligence, I am just saying that some are incredibly complicated without good reason besides maybe because those who wrote those books thought that only professional philosophers will read those books... And champion in that is metaphysics... I have studied philosophy, but honestly, I think that almost the whole metaphysics can be thrown in the trash, that is if you are not trying to write a history of philosophy. And even then, there are enormous problems...For instance, Immanuel Kant... Try reading Critique of Pure Reason, and you will see what I mean... Without a proper teacher, professor, that is unreadable.
@@ozymandiasultor9480no offence but no one asked you 🤓
@@ozymandiasultor9480
Metaphysics is indeed the most nebulous and inexact sphere of philosophy... but that is also why I love it. I like to just speculate (as opposed to know), sometimes. And the idea of contemplating that the whole of existence is a certain way tends to be more intriguing to me than this or that fact.
Just a student here, but I have access to some of the best - is there any areas that particularly interest you?
Long time viewer here that hasn't subscribed until now. Your videos have changed somehow. Maybe it's the tone or the themes, or maybe it's just me, but I enjoy them so much more now.
Keep evolving, Wisecrack!
Thanks so much Heidi!
As a long time subscriber, I too, have noticed a pleasing change in tone/theme!
Kind of reminds me other their older stuff when they just focused on philosophy instead of pop topics.
Philosophy is intrinsically attached to ethics, which is intrinsically attached to politics. Anyone saying you need to keep politics out of philosophy doesn't understand either one.
The stock footage of what you imagine your viewers are like happily watching grim philosophy videos got another chuckle out of me this week
I agree with your thesis on birds. Just dinosaurs in hiding, waiting for us to relax
Andy, you get it.
This was a great video! I'd love to see you talk about the philosophy of Berné Brown and tackle vulnerability as an aid to social connection and emotional well being. I've expereinced personal growth and the value of living more in alignment with her ideas and think your insight on her work would be interesting.
We only want you to teach about philosophy that doesn't question or critique our current neoliberal philosophies that are mainstream and popular. /S
Really happy with the recent turn towards philosophy. Thanks for doing what you do.
the metaphysical conclusions i have reached caused me to recognize the importance of social and political issues
Like what?
Such as?
Mine is The Hegelian Dialectic lol... Such a good concept
I have a degree in philosophy and I think I agree with Adorno (sp?). I think this is also the best application of philosophy as well. The way I use my physiology degree is exactly how you guys explain Adorno sees philosophy. Working in the city government where a lot of system and processes are followed without much thought to why, having a philosophical approach to the system has allowed me to find solutions to problems or even create new concepts and systems to replace old ones. My philosophy degree helped/helps me think outside of the box everyone else is thinking in. I’m in a constant pursuit of trying to better my city (city of Toronto in Canada) and I do it the way Adorno describes.
I consider basically every discipline to be political. When I studied history back in college, it was clear to me that we weren’t just reiterating major events to preserve the past. We were drawing conclusions from history and our construction of it to better understand and shape the world.
I disagree that mathematics or for that matter any of the natural sciences are political, unless you count social relations between scientists / "office politics", or that there are ways to politicize any discipline. Admittably, the latter is very common, but I've the feeling that the people who do that already presuppose that "all disciplines are politicized".
@@Mattias_the_unimpressive But... they are.
You are, disingenuously so, reducing the field to its body of knowledge by dismissing the scientist as basically accessory to the knowledge. The knowledge will be there no matter who is discovering it. The reality is you need both the field and the knowledge to talk about science: the knowledge doesn't come from thin air. That body of knowledge is shaped by the politics of the field around it, the idea underlying your assumption that science (including math) is moving in this linear, unstoppable and pure fashion that would remain the same no matter the circumstances. The way that body of knowledge developed is science.
This is like that the people that say science doesn't have a style, schools of thoughts or no personality whatsoever. These days is a bit more complicated, but I can read a math paper without knowing the authors, acknowledgements or even the references (then we will assume the references exists and are correct) and describe the school of thought they come, the origin and the style of their methods and I can even have a word or two about the reviewers attitude towards the paper. And Im not talking about the words, the paragraph used, I'm talking about the actual math. I can distinguish between a Discrete Differential Geometry (my area of expertise) paper from the US and one from Germany just by reading the body of the paper. Same thing for current Deep Learning papers. The fact that a 'school of thought' can be found in math is proof there are externalities to the knowledge.
Those difference have been shaped by something, and although i have no space to continue here thats a starting point to understand how the field and the body of knowledge are part of a greater thing, and therefore susceptible to politics.
The story of Ramanujan comes to mind just to name something but The Manhattan Project would be the best example of how politics shape sciences for generations to come.
So yeah, presupposing all fields are political is the actual correct assumption. Otherwise, you are missing an important lens to judge the field, its methods and its history and how it impacted its body of knowledge.
@@lobachevscki I think I see your point, that all science is in the least affected by some schools of thought and probably also the people behind it whether they know it or not (I'm almost sure you too has seen veritasium's videos about how mathematicians used to hate the idea of complex numbers... if not it's a good watch), but as you say in paragraph three: "..., and also susceptible to politics".
Why not write "susceptible to scientific scools of thought"?
I think it's because we both agree that those are not the same thing!
Few people actually think any scientist is "perfect", but there is a difference between just thinking that any disciple is run by people with individual cognitive variations and biases and thoughts that are more or less affected by thoughts they've had previously on political issues... and reasoning that "science is already political, so consequently it can't actually be policized". The latter argument has been used to justify actual politicization.
Also, I think you shouldn't accuse people of being disingenuous, even if my argument can be interpreted as
"[disingenuously] reducing the field to its body of knowledge by dismissing the scientist as basically accessory to the knowledge."
... do you genuinely believe that my actual intent was to be disingenuous?
STEM subjects aren't..
@@Mattias_the_unimpressive
1- I didn't accuse anybody of being disingenuous, I pointed that your argument is, which is different. I see the point of the direct language and i will extend an apology in that case, but I strongly believe the argument is disingenuous and it should be called out as such for the reasons explained below.
2- "Why not write "susceptible to scientific schools of thought"? " because transitively, Schools of Thoughts are influenced by politics. Think about this: do you think people in developing countries, specially the Global South, can do science in the same way people in the US or Germany, France the UK can? if so, aren't their methodologies susceptible to the environment they are in and how that environment conditions their decision making? If we were talking more specifically about Cuba, there is a huge incentive for scientist to pursue scientific goals based on the methods and justifications the government will find suitable, and those are purely ideological. And this applies to developed countries in any case but for different reasons, see The Manhattan Project. You can argue the body of knowledge we achieved from that era would have been reached at some point, but we didnt, it was completely conditioned by the war effort (and The Manhattan Project is just the most famous example). There is a whole history about how nuclear physics fought to not be influenced by the war effort and then the Cold War to actually expand to what we have this day, that was from actual activism to reinterpreting a lot of results and methods. One simple difference on that timeline would have led to a completely different development leading in turn to a completely different understanding of science today.
And that's why I think is disingenuous, and more over: dangerous. The Nazi's thought science was not political. White supremacist thinks science is not political. Communist were in the other extreme, regarding science as purely political therefore dismissing results (which is a political statement). The body of knowledge is a thing, but that's not the only thing that science is about. Methods and development are science, otherwise, gassing people in the name of science would be considered ethical.
For what it's worth, I find these videos insightful in how I see myself and the society around us. You may not be teaching in a traditional academic settings but I'm still learning about philosophy, and I find it to be enriching to my life. At the end of the day, if you got someone to question and think, I think you've succeeded at philosophy.
I am currently reading "Simulations" by Baudrillard. The state of everything, hypernormalisation, etc. I believe it is the most relevant philosophical text of our time. Love your videos BTW. ❤❤❤
Need to read that one!
I swear Danny Elfman wrote one or two songs touching the subject for Oingo Boingo
i loved it when you said "if you have a burst pipe, you call a plumber. when you have a burst or broken concept, call a philosopher". it was a real 'say it with me gang' kind of moment. and equally so, the fact that philosophy is the study of finding all the points in which disagreement can occur (i dont know if im referencing right, but alas), it is a perfect way of seeing it. because, in a way, philosophy sheds light on the downsides on particular choices and viewpoints, and giving us every opportunity to go with the lesser subjective evil.
My interest in deep-diving into moral philosophy was triggered in 2003 shortly after the torture revelations here in the US, that Abu Ghraib wasn't a singular instance but there was a whole CIA extrajudicial detention and enhanced interrogation program. But then what happened was every other Republican (including my Dad) started trying to assert that torture was acceptable under the circumstances, or that waterboarding was not acutally torture. (Some people got voluntarily waterboarded to show how it's _not that bad._ It turns out it's that bad.)
To be, the _torture is evil_ thing was a no brainer. It's a thing that villains do in action movies to show they're villainous, or that the good guy does to show that he's a loose cannon and willing to cross the line. It also made be ask _are we the baddies_ well before I knew of the Mitchell and Webb bit.
And I realized I didn't actually have the tools or language with which to express that torture is on the _wrong_ side of the _right vs. wrong_ spectrum. Soon enough, I learned that Republicans who were okay with torture were signaling loyalty over principle. Anyone who wasn't a part of the movement was against the movement, one of the known symptoms of fascism.
So yes, it's totally political.
I guess I’m the only one that has valued the last 6 months of videos above the others… 🤷♂️ I have liked, saved/downloaded, and sent many of the newer videos. Keep it up man! I’ve enjoyed them 👏
I don’t know how one would separate philosophy from politics and day to day life. In the end is it not but our beliefs on things that we structure our society on and around? Keeping philosophy out of day to life seems a lot like trying to keep math out of science, a dream for those that don’t like or understand it but not really possible,
Is Math related to Science?
@@ComradeDt Depending on who you ask, it *is* a science. While there are some who would disagree with that, I think you would find very few if any who would say it has nothing to do with science.
@@ComradeDt even if you take a “soft” science you’ll have to keep data from testing. So ya there literally is not gold of science where decent math skills are not required
Only because you requested my honesty... I used to hate watcn this channel for Jared's videos, but I actually enjoy these ones now.
This is top notch material! I hope it helps more disenchanted people like myself!
I've recently stopped my obsession with philosophy and philosopher teachings, and switched over to different forms of psychology. This page does not disappoint with reading my mind lol.
I'm curious why you think there's a meaningful difference between the two. One is about how people think, the other is about how people should think. At a fundamental level, understanding either one requires understanding of both.
Lol I took a break from my obsession with psychology and Jung to dive deeper into philosophy. Will wave to you as we inevitably go back and forth 😆
@@dontmisunderstand6041 nowadays philosophy is dead and almost frowned upon. Well atleast trying to apply any previous mentalities that went with why or how these people became "philosophers". Just like he said, anyone can sit and think pretty much. Now that everyone's entitled to their own opinions and the ability to post it more than ever...I've started to focus on psychological teachings and such, a lil more once I started to realize it. To say there is no meaningful difference is a little odd in my opinion. But I could see how it could need explaining to understand a perspective.
Love Wisecrack.❤
"A fluffer for truth [...]" Oh my. lmao
Barely even a smirk while delivering that line, too. I am impressed.
"Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt aber darauf an, sie zu verändern." Karl Marx
"Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
I’m loving these videos. The content on Wisecrack just keeps getting better and better.
Those that avoid talking about politics are actually politicking.
To 08:55
You're not missing the point, but a more basic definition is possible. Philosophy may occur when the application of nature on the mind continues to be applied to the mind itself. For example, consider a hunter who makes a trap in prehistoric times. The hunter knows that the deeper he buries the trap, the more damage it will do to his prey because he knows that objects accelerate as they fall. However, the knowledge of acceleration during falling is an application of nature on the hunter's mind, while the hunter's repeated application of this on his own mind results in a conclusion. In this case, we can say that the hunter has a philosophical position on gravity. Therefore, philosophy serves as a mechanism for disciplined imagination, which allows it to adhere to what you say.
But how can trees be good when they’re always supporting the birds?
Thanks for your “transparency” lol
I confess I watch your vids right before bed and unsurprisingly fail asleep but I’m probably responsible for like 20+ views because I don’t want to miss anything and want to understand any new concepts.
Thanks for the quality content!
I always wondered this too. Even more, i cant imagine spending my entire life thinking about what life and its meaning/non-meaning as opposed to just simply experiencing it. Why take everything apart when you can just live it, ya know ? Definitely still interesting to learn about different philosophies in short form on YT, nonetheless !
An exploded view of a car is interesting and educational, working on a car is challenging and rewarding, driving a car is fun and necessary. Why not do whatever seems optimal in the moment?
Why would contemplating it's meaning stop you from experiencing life? You can do both at the same time
Your thinking on the topic is completely backwards. You have to live a life and have experiences to thoroughly think about it to be critical.
I really needed this video today. I’ve been struggling to write a paper about the institutional university because I’m in burn it all down mode. This was useful-because I need this paper to graduate next week lol
I see philosophy's utility/value in its practice. Not so much that philosophy should only be valued as the thing itself, but that philosophy should be valued for the language/context and tools the "practice" of philosophy offer's those who partake. There is a social utility in the shared language, political utility in the critical thought/contemplative nature of the study, and spiritual utility in giving yourself the philosophical framework that enables living of a life that fulfills you. That said, while it opens access to those utilities, the true value of philosophy (imo of course) is in the tools it puts in your hands, not the house you build with them.
Impossible, without philosophers like Aristotle we would be a bunch of nomads
@@blist14ant So you're saying that people who live the contemplative life and develop concepts/tools to share with others who expand on said concepts and tools are what took us from being nomads to being industrious societies? Thank you for agreeing with me?
"As long as there is shit, we'll need plumbers. As long as there is bullshit, we'll need philosphers" is an S++ tier quote
My hot take: Hard Sciences is to math as political ideals are to philosophy. That is, science is applied math and politics is applied philosophy. But the study of pure maths exists for its own sake just like the study of pure philosophy is great for its own sake as well!
Thanks for that nuanced video. To answer your last question: I believe, that language models can‘t replace philosophical thinking, because philosophy always (even in an analytical sense, as shown in this video) implies that you set yourself in a conscious relationship with a specific problem.
Holy shit, this video dropped just as I was pondering this very question
Having been following Wisecrack since Jared dropped the Bioshock video essay (which was also pretty politically themed) and still rocking my 8-bit Philosophy Tee I love the direction this channel has gone in, and I love the deep social commentary and the media analysis.
Still do miss Jared a bit though :D
Out of curiosity, have you guys ever considered doing episodes on the philosophies found in various tabletop role playing adventure games?
There is a lot of them so it could easily give you a many of subjects and genres to cover with some having overlapping themes. Would make over 10 videos.
Besides the obvious d&d and 40K there is also the original cyberpunk, starfinder, world of darkness brands, scion and... well there is a lot.
I would lose my mind if they talked about Mage: the Ascension. There’s also a whole podcast dedicated to that game specifically on RUclips if you’re interested in it
These videos are simply fireeee!!!
I'm bracing myself for Hegel, because I'm noticing how many things I'm reading go back to him.
I avoided him for so many years but so many things go back to Hegel.
Lol yeah, especially the Hegelian Dialectic
Really shows how ideas develop overtime
Thank you for the heads up that it was not "Old Hitler".
When We Cease To Understand the World was quite an interesting book. I was also introduced to Zizek by this channel lol
I'd love to see you do a video on the philosophy of Marcus Aurelius' and the concept of philosophy being used for personal growth and development of one's moral character and values, as it ties into this video's concept on the utility of philosophy but attacks the question from an entirely different perspective not touched on here. Furthermore, it takes philosophy out of academia and makes it accessible. It becomes less about intellectual rigor and logical argumentation, and more about how one reflects and self-analyzes to yield insight.
Isn't that what he talked about "being alone in a room, thinking? Stoicism developed contemporary with Neo Platonism, so It's not exactly a radical departure from Classical philosophy. Also, Marcus Aurelius was the worlds most powerful political leader of his time, so it's funny to bring him up as an objection to philosophy being "political". I know that you didn't specificaly say that, but there is a tendency to strip Stoicism of it's historical and cultural context in it's current popular adoption by lifestyle Influencers. Like how it was in vogue for Boomer investors to read Sun Tzu.
Philosophy helps us all be less like Jordan Peterson and more like Michael "Oh?" Burns.
Jordan Peterson is actually a symptom of the problems with philosophy. Anyone, including Jordan, can claim to be a philosopher, and there isn’t much those with philosophy credentials can do about it unless they decide to knuckle down and try to make up their minds and achieve consensus. The thing about consensus is, when someone does challenge the consensus, which is encouraged, they have to back it up. This is an effective way to cut the bullcrap, and probably the only one.
Please never stop. Love your vids.
I agree with you... We need philosophers as much as we need plumbers ....
Really enjoyed this. Good one.
I feel like most people that complain about something becoming "too political" are really just saying that they know problems exist and recognize that the solutions don't match their personal political stance but are unwilling to argue the point either due to a lack of knowledge or fear that their true beliefs will alienate them if said outloud cause those beliefs are, probably, terrible.
Also, a video around Analytic Philosophy would be awesome! Just saying.
Pretty much. Either that or they just jump back to the defeatist neoliberal argument "this is the best its going to be and doing anything about would make things worse."
You're awesome, Wisecrack. Long live!
Finally...l
I love the fact that you punned the double CCs as examples to avoid for the use of philosophy 😂
Philosophy is like art. It can be done for its own sake like fine art. It can also applied to solve real world issues like some artists become graphic designers, fashion designers, architects etc
Art has existed before language or writing, so in a sense art is visual philosophy.
I've been reading "The Founding Myth | Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American" by Andrew L. Seidel.
I'd love to hear your take on it!
another great basic starting place of plato/ so-crates is the necessity of agreement on the definition of terms. this does not presuppose agreement on the conclusions reached. it simply makes conversation possible
I’m a philosophy major but I really wanted to major in mathematics and physics. I just transferred under the philosophy major because I had already studied the entire community college math curriculum on my own and didn’t want to take the classes there especially if they had to be in-person. Even Symbolic Logic is too easy. I shouldn’t be able to do all the homework problems in like five minutes while sleep deprived and still get them all right.
Philosophy, to me, means the pursuit of knowledge with the objective of learning how wrong I am. Letting yourself be biased in favor of one perspective over another diminishes whatever result is reached.
I like the idea of Czech philosopher Miroslav Petricek, who said that philosophy is about yet unthinkable. So we can't really say what philosophy is here for now, because we don't know yet, but we will see, as in the past it discovered (or "laid down foundations") for various scientific disciplines, new ethical possibilities for society/slaves/serfs/women, for evolutions in politics, for modern logic etc.. We don't know what it brings next, but that's the exciting part!
You're not missing anything, keep going, mang
One of my favorite Wisecrack videos is the 8-bit philosophy one about Camus. In it they use Mario Brothers to illustrate parts of his work.
It’s arguable that metaphysics has largely been perfected into what we call science so philosophy is more useful in the moral and artistic realm. Another perspective is that pure philosophy provides novel concepts that have the potential to be applied to more specific real-world studies like politics. But they need not be just like pure mathematics.
Give us the Philosophy of Mario!!! Also, bring back 8 Bit Philosophy!!!!!
(I know that series won't ever be coming back, along with Thug Notes and Earthling Cinema, but it was good!! Maybe bring them back with some info spliced in some how or a segment at the end adding more info and detail that was skipped in the original videos!!! I don't know, i'm spitballing here...) keep up the geeat work as always Mike and crew!!!!
this was superb, thank you so so much
I don’t have anything deep to write, just wanted to say that this video is perfect.
"A fluffer for truth..." is both hilarious and intriguing. :):)
All hail the wisecracker! The energy in this one was spicy i loved it!
Also plumber & adult actor
& carpenter & adult actor?
"That's why it's always worth having a few philosophers around the place. One minute it's all is truth beauty and is beauty truth, and does a falling tree in the forest make a sound if there's no one there to hear it, and then just when you think they're going to start dribbling one of 'em says, incidentally, putting a thirty-foot parabolic reflector on a high place to shoot the rays of the sun at an enemy's ships would be a very interesting demonstration of optical principles."
-- Terry Pratchett
7:26 I try to throw philosophical thought onto my family and friends way of life, to try to act more mindful about their actions. If that’s doing philosophy wrong then I’m doing it wrong
7:41 oh maybe not, I’m trying to go against the consumeristic mindset that the capitalistic government is pushing on us
I have to say my train of thought got completely derailed at the end of this, and now I just want Wisecrack to do a Philosophy of Super Mario Bros, if for no other reason than that Michael said it wouldn't happen. 😆
When people say "Do X without politics!" they reveal they don't understand what politics is.
Humans are political animals
I think a major pitfall with how philosophy is approached is how some folks presuppose an ideology / argument's validity without really engaging in the real-life consequences of adopting such a set of positions. This can be seen in basically any economic system discussed on Reddit, as well as more classic examples like religious fundamentalism/dogma, or how a country's people should be governed.
Additionally, an argument can be internally consistent, but have no tether to reality. We can sit and chat about theoretical governmental models all we want, or whether the mind is separate from the brain, but until we have a way to TEST AND VALIDATE these ideas, everything and anything we do is simply guesswork.
Philosophy is indeed useful in the sense that it's worthwhile to recognize faulty lines of thinking and arguing, but it is not a replacement for scientific inquiry and testing. That's not to say science supersedes and replaces philosophy, but to recognize they address different aspects of reality and life.
philosophy is the alpha subject, all the other subjects (science, math, art, love, death, psychology, politics, religion, society, language etc.) are nothing but subdomains of philosophy. Philosohy is "the bigger picture" that tries to examine all of human knowledge to determine what that means (or could mean) to humanity. It doesn't make any sense that politics would be left out, especially considering that politics is closely tied with ethics...
Amazing video, thought provoking as always, a well
I think there's an interesting moment in the Zizek-Peterson debate where Peterson asks Zizek a question along the lines of "given that you're such an intelligent and prolific theorist, why is it that you have yet to produce a systematic exposition of your ideas, a certain Zizekianism, if you will?"- which is a question that kind of gets to the heart of the idea that philosophy should be productive in a rhetorical proving-everyone-else-before-you-wrong sense, that its movement as a discipline should be linear instead of what it is, a lateral movement where philosophers radicalise those who came before them. Hegel radicalised Kant, Zizek radicalised Lacan etc etc.
Thank you so much for being honest about sourcing Wikipedia. It can still be a valuable tool for researching information whose truth value is not contentious or difficult to obtain.
I stopped loving my wife after our first child.
Here is a fun fact from the world of construction trades: plumbers are one of the fastest shrinking trades due to aging practitioners, despite it being a six-figure job anywhere across the country.
I'm so relieved and thankful that you mentioned Deleuze and Guattari, the only ones who seemed to understand what philosophy can do. Could AI do something similar? I'm not too sure about that, it would likely establish functions which science does but again with AI, who knows, it wouldn't be a negative thing regardless
I have to explain politics to high schoolers every semester. The best simplified explanation I have is:
Politics isn't equipped to handle true/false claims. Politics is about how groups of people collectively go about solving percieved issues in the society around them. Sometimes the groups doing the solving are larger. Sometimes they are smaller. However, you don't go asking a politician what is true.
I believe the difference between philosophy and politics is a social construct.
And both those concepts in of themselves.
Politics is math. Game theory. Military theory.
Plumbers make bank. The dude plumbing my new house makes almost as much as my lawyer.
6:33. Same. Thank you for this.
Trades are static and useful physically. Thinking is formless and useful mentally.
I hope Chipotle decides to sponsor you, you're amazing little balls of awesome and if I haven't told you before you're my absolute very RUclips channel and I hope everybody gives you high fives.
To uncover a lie for Michael, I have been lying to myself about how well I have been handling my mental health. I was too afraid to face it head on, but my friends have been helping me let go of my protective facade. Thank you Wikipedia for your learned wisdom and for making Michael throw me into this dare
Philosophy is awesome, you're awesome. Keep doing this great work! #hatersgonnahate
"Be honest about something that you've been lying about."
I can't think of any lies right now because I talk to people as little as possible.
. . . Or DO I?
Without philosophy, we wouldn't know what to ask ChatGPT.
My Symbolic Logic teacher says that ChatGPT can’t prove truth-functional logic sentences
Thanks for video
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."