Did not find this boring. Anyways, may I ask where you got your ideas from? I dont think that it is necessarily a degredation of mankind, rather a shift from in focus and emphasis where people are skilled and knowledgeable. They're not simpletons, rather their world shifted from the jungle/savannah/farmland to the digital world. You posed that people don't think for themselves anymore, but I would argue that people never really did. Look at propaganda campaigns in the 40's, or whenever else. People themselves might never have been exposed to so much information as before, but that does not constitute a change of mankind, rather a change of environment. I think atleast. Sure, you could argue a different environment changes the people, but I don't think influencability has really inherently changed in people. It has just been exploited more and more. To elaborate on the other dude's comment: Your voice is fairly monotone and you do almost no editing. This means totally being focused on what you're saying and makes it more boring than a flashy video. Political commentary/philosophy can be boring, but it doesn't have to be. Either way this makes for easier videos to make so I totally get it lmao
Hey there, thanks for the comment! Well, essentially my ideas come from various books, articles, people I've talked to and more, to name a few. Granted, we are all a little bit biased in our own ideas and thoughts, but my goal is to always try to see the other side of the spectrum and be open for new thoughts and ideas, because one shouldn't be in a permanent echo-chamber. But fair point regarding the 40s argument, and people have always been subject and victims to propaganda and lies, but I also think or hold the belief that people in earlier days (before the social media came into play) were required nevertheless formulate their opinions more. Sure, the question is - well what opinions? From the government/schools/institutions? I just feel like social media really hit the nail on the coffin for the opportunity for any opinion formulation, because people are far more easily controlled and manipulated nowadays with the access to social media and internet rather than in the older days where technology of radios and newspapers weren't that accessible and widespread as we have it today. And yeah, I try to make those raw videos on purpose, not because I'm lazy to edit, but because I want to make it as authentic as possible, but nowadays people are incredibly accustomed to fast-paced videos and lose patience easily, but yeah, I see the other dude's point, haha.
@@philosophiahelvetica If you use books or articles, maybe it's nice if you link them. I try to usually show where my ideas come from, (since there is often a framework of others ideas where you build your own from) when I make videos on my own channel (kinda sorta similar to your style of content, this is not my channel account though). To your point of people being more able to formulate their opinion, I kind of feel that there is pretty little evidence of that. Lets go even further back, in medieval ages. People just took on what the church said and the pastor preached. Only when the printing press happened and people were exposed to more information were they able to "think for themselves". But they were just taking on the opinions of other books they read, or giving their own biased interpretation. When drawing this parallel to social media, I don't see how this couldn't be the case with social media either. We're taking on different opinions from different sources we find (since there is more info available), and maybe give a little biased interpretation to it. I think there is a fair argument to be made that bad actors want to influence and exploit social media to do it, but I don't think that is due to the decrease in being able to formulate their own opinions. Its merely exploiting peoples lack of ability to formulate their own opinions, I feel atleast.
Good point, I'll certainly start linking more sources/books regarding the arguments I take from or where those talking points come from! That's a fair analysis. I do agree with the fact that exposure of wider sources of information, thanks to the printing press that commenced in the 1450s, led to more critical philosophers and students who began "thinking for themselves". But there is one particular argument I find to be interesting, which is, oddly speaking, the more exposure we have to information through the internet and social media, the more confused sometimes certain people become due to false information that are handed out to the audience (sure, we can also define what false info means, but I'm sure you know what I mean in this context). And sure, even in the 18th and 19th century the governments and institutions could manipulate and falsify information aka propaganda, but it was nevertheless tougher to do a massive wide-spread propaganda and thus I think the social media as a tool is an immensely powerful tool to use on younger adults or children for that matter when their brains aren't fully developed yet.
Did not find this boring.
Anyways, may I ask where you got your ideas from?
I dont think that it is necessarily a degredation of mankind, rather a shift from in focus and emphasis where people are skilled and knowledgeable. They're not simpletons, rather their world shifted from the jungle/savannah/farmland to the digital world.
You posed that people don't think for themselves anymore, but I would argue that people never really did. Look at propaganda campaigns in the 40's, or whenever else. People themselves might never have been exposed to so much information as before, but that does not constitute a change of mankind, rather a change of environment. I think atleast.
Sure, you could argue a different environment changes the people, but I don't think influencability has really inherently changed in people. It has just been exploited more and more.
To elaborate on the other dude's comment: Your voice is fairly monotone and you do almost no editing. This means totally being focused on what you're saying and makes it more boring than a flashy video. Political commentary/philosophy can be boring, but it doesn't have to be. Either way this makes for easier videos to make so I totally get it lmao
Hey there, thanks for the comment!
Well, essentially my ideas come from various books, articles, people I've talked to and more, to name a few. Granted, we are all a little bit biased in our own ideas and thoughts, but my goal is to always try to see the other side of the spectrum and be open for new thoughts and ideas, because one shouldn't be in a permanent echo-chamber.
But fair point regarding the 40s argument, and people have always been subject and victims to propaganda and lies, but I also think or hold the belief that people in earlier days (before the social media came into play) were required nevertheless formulate their opinions more. Sure, the question is - well what opinions? From the government/schools/institutions? I just feel like social media really hit the nail on the coffin for the opportunity for any opinion formulation, because people are far more easily controlled and manipulated nowadays with the access to social media and internet rather than in the older days where technology of radios and newspapers weren't that accessible and widespread as we have it today.
And yeah, I try to make those raw videos on purpose, not because I'm lazy to edit, but because I want to make it as authentic as possible, but nowadays people are incredibly accustomed to fast-paced videos and lose patience easily, but yeah, I see the other dude's point, haha.
@@philosophiahelvetica If you use books or articles, maybe it's nice if you link them. I try to usually show where my ideas come from, (since there is often a framework of others ideas where you build your own from) when I make videos on my own channel (kinda sorta similar to your style of content, this is not my channel account though).
To your point of people being more able to formulate their opinion, I kind of feel that there is pretty little evidence of that. Lets go even further back, in medieval ages. People just took on what the church said and the pastor preached. Only when the printing press happened and people were exposed to more information were they able to "think for themselves". But they were just taking on the opinions of other books they read, or giving their own biased interpretation. When drawing this parallel to social media, I don't see how this couldn't be the case with social media either. We're taking on different opinions from different sources we find (since there is more info available), and maybe give a little biased interpretation to it.
I think there is a fair argument to be made that bad actors want to influence and exploit social media to do it, but I don't think that is due to the decrease in being able to formulate their own opinions. Its merely exploiting peoples lack of ability to formulate their own opinions, I feel atleast.
Good point, I'll certainly start linking more sources/books regarding the arguments I take from or where those talking points come from!
That's a fair analysis. I do agree with the fact that exposure of wider sources of information, thanks to the printing press that commenced in the 1450s, led to more critical philosophers and students who began "thinking for themselves". But there is one particular argument I find to be interesting, which is, oddly speaking, the more exposure we have to information through the internet and social media, the more confused sometimes certain people become due to false information that are handed out to the audience (sure, we can also define what false info means, but I'm sure you know what I mean in this context). And sure, even in the 18th and 19th century the governments and institutions could manipulate and falsify information aka propaganda, but it was nevertheless tougher to do a massive wide-spread propaganda and thus I think the social media as a tool is an immensely powerful tool to use on younger adults or children for that matter when their brains aren't fully developed yet.
Boring
I appreciate your comment, even if you find it a little boring. What exactly was boring in your opinion?
@@philosophiahelvetica nothing new to the topic. We all know this. No big revelation, nothing new to add.
Appreciate your feedback.