Putting Nihilist in D tier is a pro move. Only the true Nihilists (for which there are few) will accept it and be unbothered enough to interpret someone else’s well thought out opinion.
It sucks that modern nihilists just stop at the “life has no meaning” part, because Nietzsche’s teachings were for you to then create your own meaning after that point, and to be the controller of your own purpose in life. The truth was he was sort of a stoic, in that sense
I really was even if stoic and Nietzsche disagree on a major point. Nietzsche believe you should live for your self, while stoic believe you should live for good(god). They in a sense have a similar way of seeing life
And life problems, I really appreciate seing somebody saying that. Cause I have been thinking about that for a while and nobody seem to think like me ahah.
@@charlesprevost8501 I wouldn’t say stoics “live for god” at all. Stoicism predates Christianity by hundreds of years, and a majority of history’s greatest stoics were not Christian. The belief of stoicism is to make peace with what you can’t change for the better, and focus on what you can, which generally translates letting go of outside influences and focusing on bettering yourself.
@@t.b.cont. you’re completely right. Still the greatest stoic were strong believers of Grec myth. Like Zeus etc. Also, yes Stoic did believe that outside influence should not change you for worse. This was just a part of their belief tho. Stoic thru this whole to not let the work change you did it to serve the world. Therefore, serve the good. And in their mind, the idea of good was said by gods*(religion). The stoic would therefore serve gods*. It’s a part you is usually forgotten today, as most modern Stoic are atheist. Still, the fondation of stoicism is intersected to religion(grec Myth).
only wish he did it in a little more of a deranged way, like his whole "I'm not gonna bash or attack any philosophy" almost made me click off at the beginning
Exactly, that's what draw me in. It was a nice vid overall so I'm all for a part 2. Part 2 would also be interesting for the other traditions it could touch. In a part two, I'd definitely include pragmaticism. I think relativism would also be important to be included. Hedonism could also be interesting as a link between ancient philosophy and contemporary society.
@@xiiir838 Brother, your comment made me curious so I looked at your channel and saved playlists. I understand your feelings and I sympathize with your frustrations. Liberalism is a disease, but the analysis that results in your viewpoint misses the mark. Your enemy is not the poor liberal, minority, or the queer kid. Your enemy is the elite class who profit off your body, and your labor. Engaging in identity politics drives a wedge between you and your neighbors and distracts you from this fact. I know times are bleak right now and the anger you feel blots out the depression. That is normal. We are all feeling this in some way due to the underlying contradictions in our society. I don't have all the answers but the catalyst that began clearing things up for me was the book "Native Son". I wish you well and if you want to talk more let me know :)
I am an absurdist. I used to read books like I was going to find the answers, the German's, the French, the Russians, the Buddhists, the Jews etc etc. None of them were wrong but none of them were completely right. I realized there are no answers and no ones figured it out and that is ok. I just live my life, try to better, set goals, be charitable but if I fail at those things it's OK too.
But you think absurdism is completely right? How is that not contradicting the whole of absurdism? Also how are you first naming people from certain countries and then suddenly religions? Your view: 'if i fail it also doesnt Matter' seems more nihilistic than absurdistic. Youre trying to cope with stress and depression via absurdism, it can help, but maybe read into it more, and if you already have, nice but keep the options open, you never know who is wrong or right...
@@justusschoenmakers8987 Did OP say that absurdism is the one true answer or something? Is OP's statement, "I'm an absurdist," necessarily something that concludes all search for any more meaning? Can't absurdism easily overlap with a continued search, discovery, and invention of meaning? 😅
The problem with modern day philosophy is dogmatic beliefs. A Libertarian must believe that no government at all should exist or else they are not a true libertarian. Life is too nuanced for such hard line stances on philosophy. Sometimes things in life have no meaning, such as a baby dying at age 3 (nihilism), but you can still create beauty from this tragedy by appreciating the life you have, the small life they had, and this moment (romanticism). You should attempt to keep your emotions in check, not explode on someone who doesn’t deserve it (stoicism), but it is also ok if it’s too much to handle and you do something extreme like sob uncontrollably. Because the feeling itself is beauty (transcendentalism). Philosophers need to learn to compromise on philosophy and learn to not be so rigid. Else they end up in their current state of defending laughable opinions to the death
Beliefs are rigid and hard to change. Ideas are meant to be maluable. People get ideas all the time all on their own where as what people believe often boils down to who people listen to, and what makes sense to them. Thing is fiction is only readable when it makes sense so people are often fooled, yet you have so many things that were once fanciful imaginations in scifi that are now reality. Actual philosphers really only reflect on themselves not so much society, more so how they view it at that time. Actual philosophers dont have rituals built into their philosophies although many of the currently reknowned ones used certain fungi to kickstart the process at times. Beliefs cause arguements that span thousands of years and lead to wars. Ideas bring conversations and other healthy interactions leading to prosperity. This is why political or religious philosophies and philosophers are sketchy, with actual philosphers trying their best to keep their personal beliefs and biases out of the equation entirely, because it narrows the field of thought leading to more focus on desires of heavenly nirvana and fear of the torments of not achieving such. Actually i had a seperate reason for the politcal part, but upon review i conclude my reply....
This is something I have struggled with as I am a libertarian. I often see too many libertarians rely solely on deontology rather than consequentialism. As you said, life is nuanced!
@@checkmate716 Right! And to add onto this, I have a close friend who is a very active libertarian in politics and we debate it all the time. And my take away is always “with some tweaking of policies and agendas you guys should be sweeping every single election”. I think most people would flock to libertarian if you could pull back some of their ideas. Especially with how tired people are of right and left
Not all libertarians believe in 0 government. Some just think that government doesn’t need to interfere and try to fix every single problem in the world. Sometimes they’re just not qualified to fix some issues and should stick to their own fields and specific tasks within a society.
@@nerdcorner2680 Yeah, the libertarian party needs to move away from the more "extremist" views. Focusing on practicality and little steps will allow the party to progress in a much more efficient manner!
This video is rough, it's not horrible; but it's rough. There are a lot of inaccuracies in the simple definitions and comparisons of various philosophical ideas. Comparing philosophical ideas that are quite simply not comparable may lead to confusion at best, and a potential unintended rejection of ideas entirely at worst. I don't intend to sound or be condescending, merely implore those who may be interested in any one or more philosophical schools of thought to do more research far beyond this video.
I agree, it went from nihilism which is an outlook questioning the entire meaning of life. to utilitarianism which is a moral compass that dictates how people act. Then to Emphiricism which is just a view point that has no moral or otherwordly value. His first mistake was saying he will try to give an "objective opinion". Opinions are inherently subjective so it was funny to hear that
i also have to agree, seeing existentialism rank below absurdism is especially funny considering absurdism is but a branch of existential thought. and even if the video managed to understand what these terms meant, the ability to rank them implies some sort of ‘meta-philosophy’ that too would have to be explained.
@@why_oh_ellewrong. Nihilism rejects all value judgements and the existence of objective meaning of life and existence. Subjective meaning is rejected aswell. People want to have this cool sounding philosophy and then go ahead and creat their „optimistic nihilism“, because guess what, it cannot be optimistic even the slightest.
I was kind of agreeing with all of them I see them practiced everywhere in society, all different philoshies reflecting through the way things are in the world. Maybe because we're connected like this now we can talk about it on a broader scale but yeah I feel like all of it is going to turn out to be true in some way. The experience will likely always vary in situations that are different by contrast but likely lead to a similar end. Time goes on, life likes to exist it can rebuild itself after cataclysmic events and extremophiles are a thing yk bugs in volcanoes and shit...
Utilitarianism isnt a philosophy about being happy at all times, or some happy-go-lucky philosophy. Its the idea that you should do your best to maximize happiness, although it does recognize that it’s not always 100% possible to keep everyone happy
Yeah, I was kind of taken aback by his statement on this. It's maximum good for most people. Think ozymandious. He killed millions of people to save billions. Neither outcome is preferred. It's the trolly problem when you take out any preference or bias you hold.
@@steventolerhan5110to some extent forecasting the future is possible, though pretty limited and very challenging. The good judgement project does a pretty good job overall
My problem with these philosophy channels is that they focus too much on identity and aesthetic rather than a philosophical movement and its significance. Everyone wants to say “I’m ___, I believe ___” rather than learning and deeply understanding the core foundations of these ideas. Ironically a Nietszche quote (F tier apparently) comes to mind typing this: “morals are inherently aesthetic”. Currently I see this channel and its viewers as engaging with the aesthetic of morality rather than its principle
Lessons of Philosophy 101: If you are going to make a comparison list, learn to distinguish between the fields of metaphysics, ethics and epistemology. In short, comparing empiricism and existentialism means I don't know anything about philosophy.
@@Yusa_BeachEmpiricism its an epistemological branch that says (oversimplified) that true knowledge its possible only by experience. On the other side,existencialism its more focused on searching the meaning on life,what do we do with it and why. As you see, they cannot be compares as they try to answer different questions Its like trying to compare physics with psychology They just study different things
For me, it was the mispronunciation of many words that tells me his script has words he’s never used in real life. Tell me more about emfearicism my guy.
So: Nihilism: Nothing matters ;( Absurdism: Nothing matters! :) Utilitarinism: Most people happy=good Objectivism: it is what it is Determinism: Destiny but science instead of faith Rationalism: Perception=knowledge Existentialism: Absurdism 2.0 Stoicism: Control mind and vices=peace and happiness
@@phoyaeyesonlytotally agree, everyone tries to choose a philosophy to make their own. While you should study all existing philosophy and incorporating elements from the to make your own unique philosophy
13:52 Saying that determinism lacks evidence and is hard to prove doesn’t really hold, because philosophy, in general, isn’t grounded in empirical evidence. Rather, it offers frameworks for understanding life and existence. Philosophers aim to interpret the world, not prove definitive truths about it. Just as it is with determinism, one could argue that absurdism also lacks “evidence” because we cannot empirically prove whether life inherently lacks meaning or a greater purpose. Philosophy isn’t about proving facts; it’s about offering perspectives and possibilities for how to interpret the world and our place within it. When someone critiques a philosophy like determinism for lacking evidence, they miss the broader purpose of philosophy to challenge and expand our understanding of existence, not to confirm it with evidence.
But it’s not necessarily a philosophical belief… it is just as prevalent in statistics, physics and math in general. Few examples: Bayesian probabilities. It deals with the degree of outcome. Something will either happen or not… but until you have all relevant information you can’t say which. And more information you find, more wrong your initial assessment was. This is a law of excluded middle ground based concept. And LEM, is a fundamental aspect of all science and mathematics. To say that there is no evidence of determinism because it’s a philosophical idea, is to say that there is no evidence that earth is an ellipsoid, because ellipsoid is just a concept made by humans. Evidence for determinism is everywhere… only real argument against determinism is quantum physics. And in reality even that does nothing to provide evidence against determinism. AT BEST you can say that at the quantum level randomness works just as well as determinism. But as for why? The uncertainty principle. In short if you know the momentum of a particle, you can’t know its position. Arguably this is a limitation on our observations abilities rather than an argument against determinism. To summarize, there is plenty of evidence for determinism, and there is only a “it could work down here if it was random” against it. Which could just as easily be some sort of epistemic or technological limitation. And of course argument for randomness… is also not compatible with free will. If everything is random, are your choices. Meaning you can’t choose… you are just a passenger. And even if you took an indeterministic approach and dismissed this, randomness would still not be any proof for free will.
Also, subjective/objective purpose for philosophy? Thats debtable. I say it can be anything you want… why put rules in places where they serve to only limit us? Why constrain our thoughts and relegate them to just… logical fantasies? Why not try to base our thoughts on evidence? This seems like a rather arbitrary limitation I have no intention of obeying.
@62sy I agree, it's also worthy to note that any religion that declares free will and has an all-powerful God, one of which is all knowing and can see into the future, effectively rendering free will obsolete if all our actions have a set end result, is contradictory to the claim and thus can't argue against determinism. Besides, determinsm is used within many sciences already, especially in fields regarding psychology. Understanding that people's behaviors are chains of causes and effects helps to figure out and resolve their problems.
no way, bro really needs to chill with that uploading schedule. I havent gotten time to go through last video and he got one up already. Sick content man keep it up
Philosophy is just how people rationalize their own suffering. I believe our perception should constantly be challenged to find what we truly believe in. So why not slap philosophy in the face?
😅 What if the AI were trained a bit to mispronounce words? I'm only kidding in this specific example (I'm pretty confident he's a real boy (Pinocchio reference)), but training an AI to mispronounce words could easily be done. Making it convincing would be a little harder, but with time & effort, almost anything is possible. We're nearing a time when & where anything online could be AI-genned. We're nearing a time when & where our smartphones or similar devices might carry powerful AIs on them that generate all the content we might ever need. Soon, gone might be the days of servers providing us most of our content. Instead, AI could generate in real-time more content than you and I could ever consume in our lifetimes. 😅 What an absurd future lies ahead of us. Something like the internet might exist for along time; however, instead of it being used as a highway for content as it is now, it might be better used to update all the many, smaller AIs that exist on smaller devices than the large servers that house Big AI. The Big AI will outdo humanity in math, science, and arts. It will update the smaller AIs via some kind of internet connection. The small AIs can provide us with evergreater math, science, arts, content, media, guidance, and so on. All of this is speculative, but it will be interesting to see how things play out in the next few decades. I tell folks over and over, "The 21st century will be the most absurd and surreal century of humanity ever." I'm grateful and excited to be alive during this time. So long as I live, I will get to observe some of the most absurd change in human history. A bit of apprehension though: will humanity be relevant in coming decades or centuries? 😅 If the ASI (s for super) outdoes humanity in math, science, art, and so on, then what do humans have to exist for? 😅 This is possibly the most absurd part of it to me: humans have made a future where we humans aren't needed anymore.
@@Paraselene_Taois humanity relevant now? Is, besides the natural, already existing powers that are greater than ourselves, the one we create ourselves the one that makes us irrelevant?
@@102728 Yes, I see what you mean. In the scope of the universe, yeah, humanity barely existed. We're on one small rock orbiting a normal looking star, and that star orbits a normal galaxy with roughly 200 billion other stars, and that galaxy is one of roughly 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe, and the whole universe could be much larger than our observable bubble, and the observable bubble might be splitting into astronomically large numbers of universes in a Many Worlds model or it might all be existing in complicated superposition or something else comical. It's all laughably absurd: we barely exist(ed). Here on the little planet, though, we've had a fairly measurable effect. We have to consider it in relative terms. Did humanity affect the universe? Practically, no, we haven't. Did humanity affect the little planet we live on? Practically, yes, we have and continue to do so. We're living in the Anthropocene: different kinds of man-made pollution & evidence of humanity exist; CO2 & methane at almost unseen levels in hundreds of thousands of years or possibly millions of years are causing global climate change; microplastics and "forever" chemicals everywhere; nearly all surface of Earth has been touched by mankind except maybe portions of Antarctica; we're the only known species to make it (however briefly, and some people consider it a conspiracy) to the Earth's moon; we're the only species on this planet to split and fuse atoms (fission did happen naturally in Oklo, Gabon, and a few other places, but we've made a real point of making isotopes beyond 92 on the periodic table); biodiversity is crashing downwards at rates probably never seen outside mass extinction events; nearly all megafauna alive these days is food or work animals for us; massive swaths of land are monocultures; deforestation and urbanization is perfectly visible from satellite view; and there are more examples that I'm probably missing. 😅 So yeah, we're irrelevant to the universe, but we're kind of relevant to the Earth. Meanwhile, AI might be an intelligent tool that humanity makes that ends up making humanity irrelevant (back to default irrelevancy) on Earth. 😅 This is probably the most absurd part of it to me: we might close the loop of our relevancy soon. That we were relevant at all, that we did cause the Anthropocene extinction/calamity event on Earth, and that we might fix the problem ourselves by giving balanced control over to our ASI systems. Maybe everything returns to normal: humanity never was relevant to the universe. Have I made sense? I hope you have a good day.
Camus' absurdism is not about finding personal meaning in the absurdity of existence. It is about rejecting the need for a meaning and finding fulfillment in not needing an inherent purpose. (This is especially emphasized in The Stranger)
True. I dont think the person who made the video really did in depth research on the philosophies ranked in the video, and, more importantly, research into the histories and consequences of theses philosophies. For example, ranking nihilism at the lowest tier is extremely odd, since nihilism partially birthed theistic existentalism, demarcated by Soren Kierkeegard, which birthed absurdism (sort of atheistic existentialism), by Albert Camus. I also do think its very weird to rank stuff like utilitarianism and stoicism in the same tier list. Utilitarianism is more of a societal standard at this point whereas stoicism is more of a personal guideline for each to follow individiually. They have different implications in the world and they cant be compared to one-another.
Until watching this video i didnt know what to call it, but now i can say have a pretty nihilistic view on life and I've always felt very freed because of it. Believing there is no set meaning of life means that I can create my own meaning to my life. It's not about whats expected of me or searching for meaning, but more about how I choose to live my short little life on this floating rock. I've never understood how there even could be a meaning to being alive, we're just here and all we can do it make the best of it
You are referring to existentialism, that's when you realize life has meaning and you must create your own meaning. Nihilist believe there is no meaning and it cannot be create because life is inherently meaningless
That pretty not nihilistic and basically exactly what existentialism is! 'A nihilist believes that life is meaningless and the only known truth is the existence of the self. An existentialist believes that life is meaningless too, but that meaning can be created by the individual'. Visit the existentialism subreddit if you want to learn more.
When you come home you will treat your children, your spouse and family as if they were meaningful. In other words, you'll only be a Nihilist when you have to philosophize, but will act out the opposite. You'll only acknowledge Nihilism when it fits you.
but all of his info was just incorrect. this guy has never even picked up a philosophy textbook, and all his terms are mixed up. how can anyone like these videos
Here's a better actual ranking of philosophies by their importance and means of achievement in human consciousness rather than what's a better or happier way to live: S-Tier (Profound, transformative impact across disciplines) 1. Existentialism - Shaped modern philosophy, literature, and psychology through its focus on meaning and freedom. 2. Stoicism - Timeless philosophy with growing relevance for mental resilience and well-being. A-Tier 3. Nihilism - Central to existential thought and modern critiques of value systems. 4. Deontology - Key in ethics and political philosophy through its focus on duties and moral laws. 5. Utilitarianism - Influences public policy, economics, and ethics with its focus on outcomes. B-Tier (Significant but limited practical reach) 6. Absurdism - Builds on existentialism but with a narrower focus on the human struggle for meaning. 7. Rationalism - Foundational to epistemology, though its strict reliance on reason faces modern critiques. C-Tier (Relevant but with controversial or narrow influence) 8. Empiricism - Historically important but now integrated into scientific methods rather than standing alone. D-Tier (Controversial with limited acceptance in academic philosophy) 9. Objectivism - Popular in specific circles but criticized for oversimplifying ethical and philosophical questions.
Making a philosophy tier list is one thing. Pronouncing The Stranger's protagonist's name as "More Assault" and laissez-faire as "lee-ehz faire" is straight up criminal.
Idk, I feel like nihilism is a very healthy state of mind for anxious people. Normal people will go "nothing matters :(" while anxious people will go "nothing matters! :D" and actually feel free to work on the same things normal people feel the need of an external value of existence to work on.
No, if you genuinely acted out Nihilism and thought about it during every single interaction you ever have you will become depressed. That's just inevitable. What you're doing is pretending like life is meaningful when it fits you to gain positive emotions, but only accept meaninglesness when it's about philosophizing.
@@tubsy. could be. or maybe I'm different from you and can accept the inherent meaninglessness in life and see it as conferring my choices their own special meaning.
@@tubsy. OP's point is probably nihilism through thought. Not everybody goes straight to depression when you expect less through a basis of a reality check, this might be a solution to anxiety and overthinking. What you're talking about is nihilism through action, which is dangerous because it may affect other people. Nihilism always factors in realism which basically counters social rules created for everyone to obey. The only extreme side of it is it can be used to force anyone into anarchy which is ironic since it now has a "meaning" when taken into action.
I would definitely be interested in seeing a part 2! While I may not agree with every ranking i certainly respect this tier list. I am very curious to see where you would rank moral relativism
This video is kind of funny because a lot of these philosophies overlap in profound ways. It's unlikely that someome could hold all of these philosophies at the same, but many overlap in significant manners.
he also just gets 80% of all his info wrong, like it was chatpgt or wikipedia. He misuses terms and clearly does not understand the different branches of philosophy or the difference between truth proposition and responses. Terrible video.
@@JNB0723 I largely agree. This content wasn't high quality. I was going to critique his recently published "philosophy ice berg" video, but as I was listening and writing notes, I had too much to critique. I was writing pages of notes with timestamps. I think I had four pages of notes from the first hour of the three-hour long video. It was crazy. I don't even have a degree in philosophy. I just like the field, and I've listened to or read maybe a thousand hours of philosophy lectures, books, and commentary over the last four years or so.
That's because some of those "philosophies" are just sub branches of the same philosophies. Absurdism is a branch of nihilism. Some are also orthogonal and at various scales. "Low level" stuff like empirism and rationalism question the very nature of existence, understanding and reasoning. "High level" stuff like stoicism, utilitarianism consider those subjects more or less covered and question what a person should be doing. It's the difference between: "Should I help my neighbor ?" And "Do I even exist ?" Obviously different levels of questioning.
So absurdism is basically just nihilism without the meaningless part.. like there's no universal meaning but we can create our own meaning by embracing the absurdity of life and just moving on.
@ServingSoul In the big picture, it is. But if you can bring the belief of meaning to either yourself or others, that meaning is a thing and it is meaningful.
@ServingSoul Isn't it natural to yearn for meaning? Otherwise I would just decide to end myself immediately on the spot instead of suffering for absolutely no reason.
@ServingSoul And how is monotheism also not a form of cope? You'd be putting your faith in something that might not be true as opposed to finding meaning in accepting that there might be no universal meaning and just setting your own purpose.
@ServingSoul How do you know that independent is an entity like god? And what if we are insignificant to that god? There could be many other possibilities and nothing can be said for certain so I'd say it's all ultimately a meaningless struggle. And by creating my own meaning, I meant setting a purpose for the time I'm here if there is no universal purpose instead of giving in to nihilism and just ending myself. Like I said in my original comment, it's basically just nihilism without the meaningless part or rather without accepting the meaningless part.
I feel that only a younger person first learning about philosophy would care to identify strongly with one school of thought or another. The older you get, the more you realize that each philosophy exists because no single one is sufficient to truly reflect what this universe and our place in it, is, either as individuals or a species. There is no harm in learning about it all…far from it…and the more you learn, the more you will find you may be a absurd-utilitarian-objective-stoic, or some other mix that makes the most sense to you at a specific time in your life and that this is forever subject to change with experience. Enjoyed the video…thanks.
To say that determinism has little evidence for is a bit bias to say no? While no one claim proves determinism, many united fields such as neurological, psychological, sociological, genes to environment and many more would support determinism. Moreover, there is no consensus to define free will making me believe that it exists out of appeal to intuition
First time I've seen a tier list about philosophy hahaha. You want to know my thoughts? Well, I think they are all equal, one philosophy will not stand out above the others. The reason? Its situational. Yes, adopting a philosophy is based on the situation you're in or type of person you are. Nihilism - The Art of Nothing. (Extreme Philosophy) 'Despair' This philosophy is the hardest to understand because it can be quite difficult accept that nothing you do is meaningful. Those whose worldview follows this philosophy are people who stay true to themselves or are narcissistic. The reason is simple, the philosophy is essentially giving you an empty canvas to paint on. It's like a 'god mode' in games or 'creative mode' where nothing you do has any consequence because everything is meaningless. On the other hand, if you don't know how to paint, you will be swallowed up by the emptiness and fall into despair. Its a philosophy that requires you to go through the 5 stages of grief, and is best for someone who has less empathy or extremely high self awareness to maximise their creativity and potential. In a sense its very pure. Life is utterly meaningless, therefore everything and anything is possible. Absurdism - Acceptance of Human's Absurdity (Hard Philosophy) 'Hope' If Nihilism requires you to go through the 5 stages of grief, Absurdism is the same. The only difference is the outcome. Instead of going 'god mode' or 'creative mode' in a game after accepting that's everything is meaningless, you choose Survival mode. You may meet a lot of setbacks and often question the purpose of your existence but that does not stop you from living life you want to. Given the previous example, you are also given a blank canvas to paint on. However, instead of staying in the room to paint on your canvas, you walk out of the room and visit other 'artists' which in turn, inspires you to paint on canvas. Unlike nihilism, your canvas may end up being torn/wrinkled and even have stains but at the end of the day, does it matter? You have made something you can be proud of. There may be different art styles on your canvas, a mix of watercolor and oil painting and it may not have the purity of nihilism yet still have a unique charm to it. Even though everything is meaningless in the end, as long as it's meaningful to yourself, that's enough. Existentialism - Existence (Extreme Philosophy) 'Why?" Only people with a certain level of self awareness can reach this point of thought. Similiar to both Nihilism and Absurdism, the thing that makes existentialism different is that rather than seeking the meaning of life or thinking of life as meaningless, they ask 'Why?'. It's not a matter of whether it means something or not, its more of a curiosity for the reason behind the existence of their consciousness. People will suffer from existential dread when they cannot find the answer. The Solution? Create the answer for yourself. In a game, its equivalent to going for 'Adventure Mode'. You don't just survive or exist, you create a place for yourself. If Nihilism and Absurdism depends on a canvas premade for them, Existentialism creates the canvas and paints it for themself. Sorry if my analogy is bad, I don't know how else to explain the difference. I think each of these three philosophies have beauty in their difference and are therefore on equal ground. Of course life is not a game, but this is the only analogy I could think of that is easy to relate to. Utilitarianism - For the Majority (Easy Philosophy) 'Mutual Benefit' This is one of the easier philosophies to understand so I doubt I need to elaborate more on it. This is a philosophy that depends on society/others around you. In theory, it sounds great but its a conditional philosophy. Setting self-imposed rules based on the majority to benefit the majority has a lot of flaws. Such a philosophy is prone to contradiction and is more of a fantasy than anything else. Will you save a small group of critically endangered species or 100,000 people? Some people would say that saving an important species of plants/animals can save more humans in the future while others might argue that humans lives are worth more than those critically endangered species. Overall, its an unrealistic philosophy with good intentions. Objectivism - Facts (Easy Philosophy) 'Objectivity' Very interesting yet contradictory philosophy. This is a philosophy that is implemented everywhere as a standard. Everyone must conform to the rules of 'language' for us to write a sentence that can be understood by another. There are so many examples of these and personally, I think it has been good for human advancement as a whole. Unfortunately, for objectivism to be possible, one must be educated on the 'standard'. Ignorance is the greatest enemy of objectivism. Determinism - Fate (Hard Philosophy) 'Luck' An interesting philosophy that follows the 'law of casualty'. I won't be surprise if it was born out of science. Due to the intangible nature of this philosophy, it's quite difficult to talk about. However, if you want my thoughts on one thing they got correct - Everything in this world is connected. Does it affect our free will? That's hard to say. Think of Schrodinger's Cat. Rather than asking if the cat is dead or alive, for determinism it's better to consider who put the cat in the box. It's all strings linked together. Empirism - Physical (Very Easy Philosophy) 'Experience' Despite it's limitations as a philosophy, it is one of the philosophies which is applied by instinct. It's simplicity makes it a basic philosophy for us to understand the world as we grow up. I think that it's simplicity is the greatest advantage AND disadvantage of empirism. Rationalism - Intuition (Very Easy Philosophy) 'Reason' It is a philosophy that focuses on the process of a thought. Yes, it is often opposed by empirism, but the reason why they are so similar is because one cannot exist without the other. It's like asking the question "chicken or egg, which came first?" You won't know the fire can burn you until you get burned. However, once you have that knowledge that "fire can burn you", will you still go towards the flames? There are warning signs that are listed there, don't climb over the fence. People with existing knowledge, can assume that the sign is there for safety, even if they don't climb the fence. But for the fence to be placed there, with that specific warning signs, shows that people has done so before and may have encountered an accident. (Experience). So personally, I think one cannot exist without the other. Stoicsm - Virtue (Hard Philosophy) 'Harmony' It is a combination of different kind of philosophies, neither denying nor agreeing with extreme topics but taking things as it is, within the limits. I had fun writing this and note that I have never studied philosophy. This is my understanding after hearing your introduction and might not be accurate. I feel like each of them are applicable to different people and to rate one over another feels odd. It's not wrong just... eh. Someone people are born with little to no empathy might find it difficulty to understand certain philosophies and vice versa. Some of them is also situational so I feel like its not quite...mmm a fair comparison? Maybe if you are making a tier list for a specific aspect of each like practicality, general understanding etc...
Hey, I really loved this video. And I agree with your tier list. Thank you for explaining these concepts in such a wonderful way. I usually get confused but your explanation was wonderful🤝
Dude poor nihilism. The first philosophy to get cancelled cause on the surface it seemed rather bleek. Its own creator called it a disease rather than a philosophy. A disease once overcome leads its user to an ideal place.
Moral Nihilism HAS MADE ME SO HAPPY I CAN PUT MY OWN MEANING TO THINGS AND HAS MADE ME STOP FEELING BAD ABOUT THINGS OR GUILT BECAUSE GOOD AND BAD DONT EXIST
@@SimoneGermani04 . Once I stopped I lost all feelings of guilt and empathy and shame it has made life way better I don’t feel bad about a thing! Good and bad don’t exist they are just terms that humans and religion made to control us. The only true law is the law of nature. What you view as good or evil is based solely upon your own perception. What you view as evil, someone else may view as good. These concepts are purely human and cannot be observed in nature. Good and evil do not actually exist. And at a microscopic level everything is made out of particles in life and there are no good particles or bad ones they are just particles moving around. So weather you kill or steal it’s all fundamentally the same thing it’s all just particles moving around. And this goes much more deeper and it explains a lot in life and even after life. EDIT: Some people are saying since I don’t believe in good or bad I’m okay with getting beat up and won’t view it as bad, but that’s a dumb way to look at it since good and bad don’t exist it can’t be good or bad but the only true terms is wanted or unwanted to that specific person. The person causing harm may view it as wanted to them but the victim may view it as unwanted but that does not mean it’s objectively “good” or “bad
@@SimoneGermani04The sense of morality is entirely subjective and unique to each individual human. There's no greater meaning to it, therefore it is of no more importance than the taste in food or clothing
Thousands of years of intelligent humans debating and experimenting makes a pretty strong set of societal morals. There’s obviously things that can be better and will eventually get there but if you do things without thought just because it doesn’t really matter you will run into problems. Like the reason you feel guilt is because humans evolved to work together to survive and if you do something that hurts the tribe you will hurt yourself in the process.
@@James-eh4ye I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing that they are made up I’m just saying good and bad don’t exist that’s a fact but it’s good for growth in a society, I’m just not pulled against the same moral constraints as everyone else
Definitely want to see more, maybe even a deep dive into some of them. One thing I think would make this video perform better (it deserves so much more than 25k views) is maybe titling it for what it is, rather than making existential crisis as the focal point ( but then again maybe I'm wrong) anyways, please do more on the philosophy topic. Thanks for putting in the work for us to enjoy!
Id love it if you included some eastern philosophies if you were to do this again, like buddhism, taoism, confucianism etc. could at an interesting twist to the video and introduce people to a different aspect of philosophy
@@JonTonyJim The term “Eastern Philosophy” is usually used for Chinese and other East Asian countries such as Japan and South East Asia. But if we talk about the outside perspective, I guess India is considered Eastern as well.
There is also Optimistic Nihilism. Leaning more towards Camus' Absurdism, the individual doesn't despair in the meaninglessness of it all but doesn't pursue meaning like other Absurdist philosophies. The Optimistic Nihilist tries to live their life in a way that makes them happy and proud; there is no direct search for meaning but it is often created along the way.
That's an utilitarian perspective ("I want philosophy to make me proud and happy") or maybe an hedonistic one ("I'll do whatever makes me feel good"). Also I don't see what role optimism plays into this.
Yeah i can't take a channel that puts objectivism in A tier seriously. Like how do you have a video ranking philosophies and then put one of the worst and most harmful ones in A tier 💀
A good advice is to never base your life on ideologies. They are just concepts. They all make sense in a vacuum, they are the food for your conscious mind but they are just that. A tool. An analogy. Don't put labels on yourselves just because you think it's cool to act or think in a certain way. Always preserve your skepticism, senses, emotions and logic. You are a complex creature and there will never be a rulebook for life. You will always need to be awake, alert and ready to make conscious effort to do the right thing in the right time. There is no way around it.
Here's some thoughts: 1. Nihilism doesn't have to be doomy-gloomy. Although it had been touched upon in the video, I feel that constructive nihilism was kind of dismissed and diminished while it can be a very valid personal philosophy. 2. Determinism doesn't *necessarily* imply lack of free will (although that's a longer discussion - inquire if willing). 3. Rationalism should be the basis for lawmaking and establishing rules of managing societies. 4. Stoicism is a good (best?) philosophy for personal purposes, day-to-day growth practice, being a good member of society kind of thing. Discuss (or not, you know, whatever).
Yeah 1) nihilism is the most misrepresented philosophy out there, and I feel like it's the very basis of many other philosophies ending up on the very top of the list 2) determinism is one of those philosophies people desperately want to discredit. But in reality, it is the most probable conclusion based in the evidence we have (or actually non-existence of free will is, rather than precisely determinism)
The ranking of Absurdism and nihilism is ridiculous , you cannot be taken seriously with this man , and saying nihilism is about despair is even worse . Really hope people won't take this video seriously.
From my point of view, absurdism is just the inevitable conclusion of nihilism. If nothing matters then you are free to decide what matters to you. Your belief in meaning *is* meaning because the only thing that shapes your world is the way you see it. If you believe in something that something is as true as it gets, and it doesn’t matter if it isn’t because nothing matters right?
@@nitaigur6990No, Existentialism is the natural conclusion of Nihilism. Absurdism is the result of seeing Nihilism and descending into madness to cope and use meaningless to achieve happiness. However; Existentialists, or Active Nihilists, further employ philosophy to defeat the meaninglessness of Nihilism by creating meaning for themselves and with the aid of others, often employing principles from other forms of philosophy to establish even truer morality.
Stoicism needed an asterisk about the fake version that podcasters push where it’s just about claiming self actualization, but in reality is just whining about other people not having the same mindset as you.
Stating that Utilitarianism is not worth living by because we don't live in a perfect world is ignoring the fact that the imperfections of life are the reason for the philosophy in the first place. (Really, suffering and self awareness are the catalysts for all philosophy.) Maximizing wellbeing for humanity given the inherent suffering of life, an impossible utopia, and limited resources is literally the point of utilitarianism, not a contradiction to it.
Utilitarianism is basically the theory. Like in math or physics, the results are perfect, but they are impossible in real life due to its inherent flaws. That doesnt mean following the laws of math and physics havent resulted in working great results. I think people use the excuse of "you can never achieve perfection" either cannot bother putting the effort utilitarianism requires. Or just believe in a more individualistic philosophy, since utilitarianism is based on the maximum common wellbeing.
@why_oh_elle True. In a personal sense, some might say not to bother to shoot for the stars since stardom is so unlikely. Even if you fall short, you'll end up much further along than someone who self-defeated and never began in the first place. Just because perfection is not possible doesn't mean it can't be used as the model for what to strive for.
While it may be hard to prove determinism as a whole, I believe it's easier to see that there is no free will than to prove that free will exists, no matter how you view it, there always seems to be either a reason for our thoughts and our actions or they are random, neither of which seem to involve any free will on our part.
@@Wulk pretty much yeah. It’s mostly to say I am on the fence between both and don’t make that big of a distinction between them. I am not an existentialist though purely through me being a determinist on the same grounds that I am an atheist (essentially I see it as the non position, agnostic with lower burden to assume such doesn’t exist).
Your use of the word "contextualist" is interesting. I guess it translates to "constructivist" in my personal lexicon, but you might name it contextualist as you like. 😅 I really like George Kelly's Personal Construct Theory, but hardly anyone talks about him. His work helped lead to Cognitive Behavioral Theory. Basically, humans are scientists who constantly think and perceive the world through mental constructs. Mental constructs are pseudo-dichotomous spectrums that describe a thing: good-bad, light-dark, happy-sad, interested-bored, and any other mental construct. People build worldviews with these mental constructs. We're constantly experimenting: we test the usefulness of our constructs against the real world. It's possible to develop new and useful mental constructs throughout life. Also, we can borrow mental constructs from other people and keep them I'm our minds. Overall, I like Personal Construct Theory a lot, but hardly anyone talks about it. To me, a responsible person is one who recognizes what mental constructs they're using, what mental constructs other folks use, and finally how do we help make these worldviews made of mental constructs work together in a harmonious manner. 😅
@@Paraselene_Tao Yeah suppose that is somewhat similar to what I refer to as contextualism, least adjacent to what I mean. I sum it up as thus: “It’s a rejection of absolutes. It is to say that objectivity is not an inherent property of things, but rather a property derived from the relationship between things.” It’s related to relativism, but with the intent to have a foundation to which we can understand things in a concrete or objective manner.
Personally, I think if you’re a man in today’s modern world, stoicism is objectively the best philosophy to adopt. Be like Geralt, Chief, Ghost, Marston, Kratos. Accept the absolute dawg inside of yourself and learn to control that beast and to channel that energy into your art or work or both.
Today man's are hiding rather than controlling their emotion women will cry feel better and learn men will hide everything until they explode or will transform it to anger
That is so fuckin stupid. In today’s modern society any man should be able to adopt any philosophy they desire. Stoicism is corny and just another way of acting like a “ s i g m a “
Agreed, even things like absurdism are based on feelings, the feeling "well man, life it's kinda crazy", that's why absurdism, leaves to some general good feeling ideology. On the other hand Stoicism recognises the value of the human, and that we loose are temper and can be quite irrational at times, but controlling oneself, knowing every extension of your being, that's why more loving and virtuos than any popular philosophical ideology
True but don't forget that Stoicism is also based on feelings, what makes it special is it teaches self-improvement and control over your own emotions compared to other philosophies/ideologies who are too busy trying to find answers to the questions provided by nihilism.
Started watching this vídeo to help me sleep, it was so interesting that in the morning i continued to watch it from the moment i stoped last night, great video brother
I feel like this tier list is kinda odd (rating absurdism as top and nihilism on the bottom is strange). Furthermore I feel like some concepts are not understood/explained clearly. For example, absurdism is not about finding a meaning in the "non meaning of the life" which is what seems to be explained here but accepting the absence of meaning and living with it. Camus says "The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy." It does not mean that one should find meaning in the struggle, just like Sisyphus does not have any meaning in its constant struggle, but more that the struggle itselft should be sufficient to be happy and fulfill our heart, without the need of meaning.
That video is a joke on so many levels Apart from the fact ranking philosophies is a problem because it implies some meta-philosophy that is never really aknowledged. The Ayn Rand stuff is a joke, it's just a hodgepodge of what Ayn Rand thought at the time. The take of Determinism is nonsense. Saying it has no proof is laughable because it is probably the one philosophy that is the most rooted in science. Their are counterarguments, but they are of the quantum physics type not the "I have free will because I can do what I want" type. Saying it ain't good because most people don't believe it is ridiculous.
Or it could be based on ones opinion and personal feelings? Also the whole argument against free will is asinine, the argument against it is thought and self reflection. People go against their basic hormonal urges everyday. It's cringe and Emo.
@@jackalzirson2631 sigh... twin studies are irrelevant. Determinism doesn't require identical outcomes from similar starting conditions in complex systems. It's about causality, not simple predictability. Each twin becomes a unique entity the moment they're born, creating distinct causal chains. Identical twins, sharing the same DNA, become distinct entities the moment they start interacting with their environment. Each decision, each experience, each fleeting thought creates a unique trajectory that can never be exactly duplicated. Ironically you just made an argument for, not against determinism. ----- Although let me rephrase the last part because it doesn't sound quite right. "Each decision" sounds like an entity in the system has some autonomy over the decision making process. It doesn't. The entity isn't really "doing" the deciding. Instead, it's more like the environment and interactions are constantly shaping the entity. We're not the authors of our thoughts and actions, but rather the product of an unbroken chain of prior causes.
I find great comfort in nihilism. When nothing holds intrinsic meaning, I feel liberated to live life on my own terms, pursuing the things I truly desire. In my opinion, it's a really good way to view life. :)
Experience Meaningless: Experience and prejudice. To accept sight and illusion in the same relativity and not be a slave. Slavery: To be free from the growth of intellect. Experience free from understanding and memory as triviality. Memory: reduced down to recollection without review, in a universe of consistent physics; a triviality of organic invincibility. Experience rendered down to self-sensual recall without existential considerations; meaningless. Prejudice: to accept the delusion that no human can consider and choose. For experience to outweigh sense and sensible prudence and suggest in definite physicality that humanity is as inorganic as the constructs we purpose. Triviality to the concept of Slave, is Mass to Gravity, either one hypothetical without the physics of Trivialization or Mass. One requiring the circumstance of genesis, the other requiring absence of necessity; Nativitus Ancillae. Relativity: the universe revolves around you, but only if you watch with others; relativity born of tripartite geometry; self (observing), other (conferring), objective (occurring): co-intimate experience and co-context. Relativity: all things can happen to you, most didn't, you only know what you think, you only think what you can hypothesize, all understanding revolves around perception and interaction. Understanding and position; relative. Hypothesis: a proposition of a form unsensed in the physical, in the definition "scientific" it is the Fructus Ventris Physica Quantitatis; the guessable, potent in measurability, invisibilia ad carnalis, observationis codificationem. Hypothesis: a concept just beyond sensible observation but within sensory or facultative relativity to intimate comprehension; the space an observer feels safe to coniectura didicit doctrina. A cerebrum exercitium. Meaningless: the words of any personal exposition without the person. Interpretation of intended and intimate communication removed from its physical occurrence. To hypothesize in the spirit of Freud, all are I. Meaningless: a description of a building behind it's façade to a man on the street. Definition without sensible example; invisibility bestowed by the suggestibility of the potent potentiality of descriptionem alienum. Reference without experience, definition without context, experience without definition, definition without reference; to theorize on fancy, the possibilities of cause bereft of "scientific" prejudice towards provable. A description of the unseen to the comfortable in sense, and sensibility; hypothesis delivered socially by the perfecte mediocris to their perfecte mediocris aetatis. Interest and applause humilis, the sermo aequalis. Contemporary communication, external warehouse for internal deliberation. Deliberatio externa by contrast is built on extra-contemporary, the functional in sense and nerve unwilling to mal-hypothesize popularis prudentia. By definition a contemporary is both naturally occurring and actively intersecting, or it is a generational (illusory), built of temporal coincidence. Meaningless in contemporations intimate, capable of saying they share an age. The addict kind Lonliness is a myth spread by the ill, unwelled by popular delusion (self accepted). The sickly, pulsing out their (self) comforting radiance, the marking of a predators territory. A light to shine on all slow enough to not revile it for it's false and reason less eviction of self from capability. The prey; uninitiated youth, vulnerable innocence. Argue not with the aged (or experienced) self-convinced. The miracle of emotional conformation of physical fact convincing to the unknowing, under steady application, overly sweetened (for the self) ideals of pleasure and comfort, the prey forget they knew a peace that didn't requiring feeding or explanation. The virtue of falsely buoyed stability grinding the ignorant, young, and uncatered, all taken in by the sin of kindness as apex. To gift the sickness that tells a human "human emotion in the negative is unnecessary and beyond comprehension or tolerance". To know that there are those in the world of humanity, who in their generationally refined adherence to parasite coddling, will continue to teach the youth "drugs are a healthy and functional right of aware and intelligent people" is a mark of shame in this age of our collective development. The truth of human being betrayed by the proposed necessity of stimulation beyond the natural state, it's supposed normality vouchsafed; sobriety (health) ignored as a greater insanity than parasitism. Salve the wounded pride of the vulgar addict, crucify the outspoken advocate of reassessment. This is not a statement of conflict, rather a portrait of the true and natural order in it's biased equality (comfort belonging to those who crave it most). Exogeny In an era of fear, humanity is tested. The exodus of existential loneliness is a heavy burden. Self-indulgent contemporary values, the pitiful death of the faithful gregarious martyr. Silenced in the passion of virtue, in the fury of desire as necessity, the ideal dies for the joy of man as the ideal devotee of nothing. Endogenous evidence of exogenous truth, derived from noble prejudiced purposes, refutes the pathologies of nature as the folly of prosaic and sensible sustainability. Euphoria at any cost, at any cost.
@@placeholder3863 For me Determinism is true, because of dialetics. Dialetics is a materialistic view on world, because even though there was idealistic dialetics (Hegel), it came from evolution of philosophy,it will be objective idealism. Idealism divides onto 2 main things (u can combine them) : Subjective, Objective Idealistic subjectivism is a philosophical perspective that combines elements of idealism and subjectivism. It posits that the only reality that exists is the mental or subjective experience of individuals. According to this view, the world is not an objective, independent reality, but rather a creation of the mind.Example : rose becomes red whne we look on it Objective : there is an ideal spirit/god/world etc. while our world is existing because of that thing.Hegel had an idea of objective idealism, where a spirit evolved to get knowledge about itself (very short explanation). 🤗
@@Tweindstien I am a determinist as well, but I dont quite get what youre saying. Hegel's Dialectic deals with rhetorical theory- a subset of Aristotelian Dialectic Theory.
I feel like the absence of suffering, or happiness outweighing suffering is the only real goal. Who cares how scientifically advanced we are or how much "good" we do if the suffering outweighs happiness. Imagine the immeasurable years that went by before you were born. There were no suffering or discomfort. Only reason you were born was because of the urges of the humans before you. Urges comes from wanting, and you would not want if you were already satisfied. Either make life more positive than negative or you were better off never existing.
I gotta say I have to educate myself more on absurdism but stoicism is the way I go usually in my day to day life most of the time and I have to admit I think you made a very fair tier list. Great video, watched it all the way through
In my opinion your philosophy in any given moment should be flexible, whatever serves your purpose at any given time. Some philosophies can do that at any time, but a lot cannot. Rather than Binary-thinking, combining multiple aspects of several philosophies to fit whatever serves your purpose is objectively superior. Rather than Black or White, combine the best aspects of the two and take the Gray route. After a bit of research I believe I'm just describing Syncretism, correct me if that's wrong. (I'm not very philosophical so please bash me in the comments for denouncing your views)
Finally someone who also thought of this idea, it's been on my head multiple times where people should just take the best ideas and lessons each philosophy gives and compile them into your own philosophy, that way you can fully adapt and become the best version of yourself.
here is my idea on determinism The nature of free will is neither absolute nor completely absent-it exists within a bounded framework. Determinism governs the conditions of existence: for instance, a mute person cannot sing, or a person cannot act outside the limits of their capabilities and environment. However, within these boundaries, a multitude of choices are available. These choices are influenced by past experiences, genetic predispositions, and environmental factors, yet the exact outcomes remain unpredictable due to the complexity of interactions. This model suggests that free will operates like a spectrum within deterministic constraints. While the future is shaped by the past, it doesn't mean it is entirely predetermined. Instead, the interplay of cause and effect opens up an "infinite range of possibilities" within given limits. Certain activities or reactions may be more predictable (e.g., a person flinching at a loud noise), but others are less so due to the unique, dynamic factors at play.
I love the way these are ranked! Placing Absurdism and Stoicism at S tier. If you strive to live the best life you can, without obsessing over trivial meaningless details, then that already is a very decent life to live! Life is short enough as it is, just enjoy it as it lasts, and might as well be a moral person and leave a positive impact while you're at it!
well, this video is a neat introduction to some philosophical concepts, but there are some mistakes regarding e.g. utilitarianism or nihilism. Guys, if you read this please properly read up on concepts and don't talk after this guy. Many of these concepts don't exclude one another. E.g. nihilism is a possible consequence of skepticism, but many skeptics lower the epistemic standard in order to determine propositional knowledge and nihilism does not necessarily lead to amoralism, but many modern nihilists tend to moral emotivism, which means to have certain individual values and judge values as an expression of sympathy.
The problem of this tierlist and giving "objective opinions" whatever that means is comparing uncomparable philosophies. Some of these don't even adress the same field so it's just weird to compare them, plus like you said, they arent mutually exclusive
Funny how I found this video while wearing my Marcus Aurelius T-shirt. Stoicism is the wind in my sails I've been called to it ever since I did some deep thinking and realized I needed a philosophy to guide me down the path that best suited my needs. "Look well into thyself for there is a source of strength that will always spring up if tho whilst always look."
Oh man this comment section is wild. „Just because there IS no meaning doesn't mean you should not experience happiness“ Hate to break it to you guys, but your little happiness is worthless too and not worth going for. Nihilism rejects ALL value judgements. It's not freeing. Your „optimistic nihilism“ does not exist in academic philosophy, it is entirely contradictory. Beyond that, nihilism is doing gigantic leaps of faith because of gaps in knowledge. Educate yourselves ffs. Don't take that premise. That's the thing what's problematic with Camus too, giving in to nihilisms premise was a mistake and a matter of poor thinking.
Maybe a good principle to live by is-if you’re struggling to find a philosophical worldview-to work towards helping make it easier for others and future generations to find a more appropriate philosophy. Even if you’re a nihilist, as long as you’re not 100% sure that your philosophy is THE correct philosophy, anyone can proactively work towards making things easier for others to create better philosophies. I hope this makes sense. ✊✊✊
Hearing the idea of determinism "not having enough evidence" is very intriguing to me. I am a determinist because I see no evidence for the idea of free will, so it's interesting to see how a different perspective would view it. I see the idea that there is free will as the claim which has to be proved, while others see the lack of free will as the claim that has ti be proved.
Nihilism is actually a liberation It is at the bottom of every mental and real concept It is the beginning and the end also for religions as Buddhism I think you don’t really understand how much it is important Anyway you are doing a Tierlist of philosophical theories! I can take that with a lot of ironical meaning
Dude, a tier list is a personal ranking, it's not objective by any measure. It's just how he likes the philosophy based on his personal views and how much he read
I’m an absurdist to the core. Every insane random event can be seen as a Seinfeld bit if you view life as absurd. Life is went to be witness and experienced in all its insane glory. It will throw seemingly random encounters at you and you might aswell laugh at it then be depressed by the lack of control.
I think we should consider this video as only a brief explanation of the most relevant philosophical trends because the form of evaluation shown in the video is subjective and is just a way to present information
I’ve recently begun incorporating a mix of Daoist and Buddhist philosophy into my life and it’s really improved my perspective on life. I’m more relaxed, less depressed, and just overall happier.
It seems like you don’t understand determinism and you just blatantly claimed that Free Will just exists because most people agree that it does. Determinism just means actions are caused by prior actions or events. And as far as we know and have observed there hasn’t been an uncaused event. There’s been “random” events in the sense they’re not predictable or it’s hard to find the cause for but to say free will exists, you’d have to demonstrate how. Personal will isn’t free will. Free will means you can free choose your will. If you’re just doing what your will is but can’t choose your will then you’re not choosing anything, your will has chosen for you and you’re just doing as your will does. It’s like if an ai followed its code. What experiment have you observed or done to demonstrate free will?
Half the info was straight up wrong, he never lists sources, he misuses terms, mispronounces names, never uses evidence, and compares different branches of philosophy (epistemology, ethics, meta-physics).
Spiritualism is missing here, but it is S-tier. The feeling of comprehending the incomprehensible, and being able to extract life values from mundane things is mesmerizing.
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Imagine basing half of your life in a worldview and then you see some guy on RUclips putting it on F tier
In fact, half of the human population is below average, nothing to be ashamed of 😅
Oh no. Anyways...
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Does it matters
@@bljrpahamTranslate to Englich
Putting Nihilist in D tier is a pro move. Only the true Nihilists (for which there are few) will accept it and be unbothered enough to interpret someone else’s well thought out opinion.
by saying this you renounce any nihilistic worldview you may have had
@@MrBeas_Cousin for which there are few. 🖤
false dichotomy
no-true-scotsman fallacy
@@laplacesdemon01 oh brother this guy stinks
Nihilism bottom tier and Absurdism top tier is just another way of saying you’re an optimist.
Good point I guess so.
Absurdism is a nihilism where you have fun along the way 🤷🏽♂️
Nihilism is ultimately a destructive lens to look at life with. Absurdism is an answer to the void.
Absurdism resonated with me immediately.
@@Snook_YTit's literally not a good point though
Don't ask for a nihilism based perspective. It doesn't matter.
Underrated comment
Facts
Funny 😂
😂😂😂
Okay, Owlman.
It sucks that modern nihilists just stop at the “life has no meaning” part, because Nietzsche’s teachings were for you to then create your own meaning after that point, and to be the controller of your own purpose in life. The truth was he was sort of a stoic, in that sense
I really was even if stoic and Nietzsche disagree on a major point. Nietzsche believe you should live for your self, while stoic believe you should live for good(god). They in a sense have a similar way of seeing life
And life problems, I really appreciate seing somebody saying that. Cause I have been thinking about that for a while and nobody seem to think like me ahah.
@@charlesprevost8501 I wouldn’t say stoics “live for god” at all. Stoicism predates Christianity by hundreds of years, and a majority of history’s greatest stoics were not Christian. The belief of stoicism is to make peace with what you can’t change for the better, and focus on what you can, which generally translates letting go of outside influences and focusing on bettering yourself.
@@t.b.cont. you’re completely right. Still the greatest stoic were strong believers of Grec myth. Like Zeus etc.
Also, yes Stoic did believe that outside influence should not change you for worse.
This was just a part of their belief tho. Stoic thru this whole to not let the work change you did it to serve the world. Therefore, serve the good. And in their mind, the idea of good was said by gods*(religion). The stoic would therefore serve gods*. It’s a part you is usually forgotten today, as most modern Stoic are atheist. Still, the fondation of stoicism is intersected to religion(grec Myth).
@@t.b.cont. *
philosophy tierlist is a hilarious concept, all for it
only wish he did it in a little more of a deranged way, like his whole "I'm not gonna bash or attack any philosophy" almost made me click off at the beginning
@@dutchthenightmonkey3457Hey bro, by any chance are you a person that leans ⬅️👈?
Exactly, that's what draw me in. It was a nice vid overall so I'm all for a part 2. Part 2 would also be interesting for the other traditions it could touch.
In a part two, I'd definitely include pragmaticism. I think relativism would also be important to be included. Hedonism could also be interesting as a link between ancient philosophy and contemporary society.
@@xiiir838
Brother, your comment made me curious so I looked at your channel and saved playlists. I understand your feelings and I sympathize with your frustrations.
Liberalism is a disease, but the analysis that results in your viewpoint misses the mark. Your enemy is not the poor liberal, minority, or the queer kid. Your enemy is the elite class who profit off your body, and your labor. Engaging in identity politics drives a wedge between you and your neighbors and distracts you from this fact.
I know times are bleak right now and the anger you feel blots out the depression. That is normal. We are all feeling this in some way due to the underlying contradictions in our society.
I don't have all the answers but the catalyst that began clearing things up for me was the book "Native Son".
I wish you well and if you want to talk more let me know :)
its really stupid to rank philosophies.
I am an absurdist. I used to read books like I was going to find the answers, the German's, the French, the Russians, the Buddhists, the Jews etc etc. None of them were wrong but none of them were completely right. I realized there are no answers and no ones figured it out and that is ok. I just live my life, try to better, set goals, be charitable but if I fail at those things it's OK too.
Nothing is absolute. Thats what i live by
Hell yeah
But you think absurdism is completely right? How is that not contradicting the whole of absurdism? Also how are you first naming people from certain countries and then suddenly religions? Your view: 'if i fail it also doesnt Matter' seems more nihilistic than absurdistic. Youre trying to cope with stress and depression via absurdism, it can help, but maybe read into it more, and if you already have, nice but keep the options open, you never know who is wrong or right...
@@justusschoenmakers8987
Did OP say that absurdism is the one true answer or something? Is OP's statement, "I'm an absurdist," necessarily something that concludes all search for any more meaning? Can't absurdism easily overlap with a continued search, discovery, and invention of meaning? 😅
@@ripvanvinkle6881So "Nothing is absolute" is apparently an absolute principle that you live by. I'm sure you can see the contradiction.
The problem with modern day philosophy is dogmatic beliefs. A Libertarian must believe that no government at all should exist or else they are not a true libertarian. Life is too nuanced for such hard line stances on philosophy. Sometimes things in life have no meaning, such as a baby dying at age 3 (nihilism), but you can still create beauty from this tragedy by appreciating the life you have, the small life they had, and this moment (romanticism). You should attempt to keep your emotions in check, not explode on someone who doesn’t deserve it (stoicism), but it is also ok if it’s too much to handle and you do something extreme like sob uncontrollably. Because the feeling itself is beauty (transcendentalism). Philosophers need to learn to compromise on philosophy and learn to not be so rigid. Else they end up in their current state of defending laughable opinions to the death
Beliefs are rigid and hard to change. Ideas are meant to be maluable. People get ideas all the time all on their own where as what people believe often boils down to who people listen to, and what makes sense to them. Thing is fiction is only readable when it makes sense so people are often fooled, yet you have so many things that were once fanciful imaginations in scifi that are now reality. Actual philosphers really only reflect on themselves not so much society, more so how they view it at that time. Actual philosophers dont have rituals built into their philosophies although many of the currently reknowned ones used certain fungi to kickstart the process at times. Beliefs cause arguements that span thousands of years and lead to wars. Ideas bring conversations and other healthy interactions leading to prosperity. This is why political or religious philosophies and philosophers are sketchy, with actual philosphers trying their best to keep their personal beliefs and biases out of the equation entirely, because it narrows the field of thought leading to more focus on desires of heavenly nirvana and fear of the torments of not achieving such. Actually i had a seperate reason for the politcal part, but upon review i conclude my reply....
This is something I have struggled with as I am a libertarian. I often see too many libertarians rely solely on deontology rather than consequentialism. As you said, life is nuanced!
@@checkmate716 Right! And to add onto this, I have a close friend who is a very active libertarian in politics and we debate it all the time. And my take away is always “with some tweaking of policies and agendas you guys should be sweeping every single election”. I think most people would flock to libertarian if you could pull back some of their ideas. Especially with how tired people are of right and left
Not all libertarians believe in 0 government. Some just think that government doesn’t need to interfere and try to fix every single problem in the world. Sometimes they’re just not qualified to fix some issues and should stick to their own fields and specific tasks within a society.
@@nerdcorner2680 Yeah, the libertarian party needs to move away from the more "extremist" views. Focusing on practicality and little steps will allow the party to progress in a much more efficient manner!
The fact you made a philosophy tier list is a sign you are an absurdist at its peak😂😂😂
idk i feel like anybody can make this if they just look at it objectively rather than emotionally
@@cyclone6976LMAO, that's the most absurd thing I've ever read... Objectively subjective... Nice
This video is rough, it's not horrible; but it's rough. There are a lot of inaccuracies in the simple definitions and comparisons of various philosophical ideas. Comparing philosophical ideas that are quite simply not comparable may lead to confusion at best, and a potential unintended rejection of ideas entirely at worst. I don't intend to sound or be condescending, merely implore those who may be interested in any one or more philosophical schools of thought to do more research far beyond this video.
I agree, it went from nihilism which is an outlook questioning the entire meaning of life. to utilitarianism which is a moral compass that dictates how people act. Then to Emphiricism which is just a view point that has no moral or otherwordly value. His first mistake was saying he will try to give an "objective opinion". Opinions are inherently subjective so it was funny to hear that
i also have to agree, seeing existentialism rank below absurdism is especially funny considering absurdism is but a branch of existential thought. and even if the video managed to understand what these terms meant, the ability to rank them implies some sort of ‘meta-philosophy’ that too would have to be explained.
Yeah I was really put off with some of his definitions and mispronounciations, made me think “I feel like I know more than this guy does”
@@why_oh_ellewrong. Nihilism rejects all value judgements and the existence of objective meaning of life and existence. Subjective meaning is rejected aswell. People want to have this cool sounding philosophy and then go ahead and creat their „optimistic nihilism“, because guess what, it cannot be optimistic even the slightest.
I was kind of agreeing with all of them I see them practiced everywhere in society, all different philoshies reflecting through the way things are in the world. Maybe because we're connected like this now we can talk about it on a broader scale but yeah I feel like all of it is going to turn out to be true in some way. The experience will likely always vary in situations that are different by contrast but likely lead to a similar end. Time goes on, life likes to exist it can rebuild itself after cataclysmic events and extremophiles are a thing yk bugs in volcanoes and shit...
Utilitarianism isnt a philosophy about being happy at all times, or some happy-go-lucky philosophy.
Its the idea that you should do your best to maximize happiness, although it does recognize that it’s not always 100% possible to keep everyone happy
Yeah, I was kind of taken aback by his statement on this. It's maximum good for most people. Think ozymandious. He killed millions of people to save billions. Neither outcome is preferred. It's the trolly problem when you take out any preference or bias you hold.
Yeah the Utilitarianism part of the video was really wrong :/
Its also the belief that humans can predict the future
@@steventolerhan5110to some extent forecasting the future is possible, though pretty limited and very challenging. The good judgement project does a pretty good job overall
It's just religion with the added step of replacing god by a utility function. Should have been F tier.
My problem with these philosophy channels is that they focus too much on identity and aesthetic rather than a philosophical movement and its significance. Everyone wants to say “I’m ___, I believe ___” rather than learning and deeply understanding the core foundations of these ideas.
Ironically a Nietszche quote (F tier apparently) comes to mind typing this: “morals are inherently aesthetic”. Currently I see this channel and its viewers as engaging with the aesthetic of morality rather than its principle
Whatever nerd
I don't think it's meant to be serious rather just a video for philosophy noob who could get interested and learn new things
Nietzsche is an existencialist
Lectures exist
Now that you say it, yeah a lot
Lessons of Philosophy 101:
If you are going to make a comparison list, learn to distinguish between the fields of metaphysics, ethics and epistemology.
In short, comparing empiricism and existentialism means I don't know anything about philosophy.
I don't exactly know them either, care to summarize a distinguishment between them?
@@Yusa_Beach Basically metaphysics is about lived reality, ethics about morality and epistemology about knowledge itself. If I'm not mistaken
This is a comment of someone that is well read on the subject.
@@Yusa_BeachEmpiricism its an epistemological branch that says (oversimplified) that true knowledge its possible only by experience.
On the other side,existencialism its more focused on searching the meaning on life,what do we do with it and why.
As you see, they cannot be compares as they try to answer different questions
Its like trying to compare physics with psychology
They just study different things
For me, it was the mispronunciation of many words that tells me his script has words he’s never used in real life.
Tell me more about emfearicism my guy.
00:40 I'm not sure what you mean by an "objective opinion." Opinions are subjective by definition, especially when you organize them in a tier list.
"Uhm akshually"
So:
Nihilism: Nothing matters ;(
Absurdism: Nothing matters! :)
Utilitarinism: Most people happy=good
Objectivism: it is what it is
Determinism: Destiny but science instead of faith
Rationalism: Perception=knowledge
Existentialism: Absurdism 2.0
Stoicism: Control mind and vices=peace and happiness
00:40 I’m just going to try to give and objective opinion”… The irony of this statement is very funny.
Isn't he literally making a tier list about philosophy? how would he even be objective about it?
It's very clear he has no idea what he is talking about
A guy who says this has no clue on how to make a philosophy tier list
Yeah, he should just be objective enough to admit its a subjective basis to his list.
@@halqthedarktemplarcan you enlighten me what should he talking about?
my favorite philosophical approach is pulling bits and pieces of all of them together to create a logically inconsistent amalgamation
this is THE philosophical approach. anything less is short-sighted and damaging most of the time
@@phoyaeyesonlytotally agree, everyone tries to choose a philosophy to make their own. While you should study all existing philosophy and incorporating elements from the to make your own unique philosophy
Exactly all of them are just different views of how we percieve life so of course I have the will to see the bigger picture.
Ikr you'll never get bored if you do this.
I generally avoid calling out mispronunciations, but your René Descartes was pretty epic.
Oooooo i cant wait to hear it
Edit: dammit i mustve missed it. Do you have approx timestamp?
@@cdogthehedgehog692318:35
Leibniz too is pretty butchered
Laissez-faire was also brutal
Emfearicisms
"Emphiricism" is sending me. It's pronounced like empirical; like empirical evidence...
I was listening to this in the car instead of watching the video and thought, "Man, I've never heard of this philosophy before."
I almost said something
I literally stopped watching the video to see if anyone else had commented on this hahah
13:52 Saying that determinism lacks evidence and is hard to prove doesn’t really hold, because philosophy, in general, isn’t grounded in empirical evidence. Rather, it offers frameworks for understanding life and existence. Philosophers aim to interpret the world, not prove definitive truths about it. Just as it is with determinism, one could argue that absurdism also lacks “evidence” because we cannot empirically prove whether life inherently lacks meaning or a greater purpose. Philosophy isn’t about proving facts; it’s about offering perspectives and possibilities for how to interpret the world and our place within it. When someone critiques a philosophy like determinism for lacking evidence, they miss the broader purpose of philosophy to challenge and expand our understanding of existence, not to confirm it with evidence.
And because your not answering to any criticism in the comments,
Coward!
But it’s not necessarily a philosophical belief… it is just as prevalent in statistics, physics and math in general.
Few examples: Bayesian probabilities. It deals with the degree of outcome. Something will either happen or not… but until you have all relevant information you can’t say which. And more information you find, more wrong your initial assessment was.
This is a law of excluded middle ground based concept. And LEM, is a fundamental aspect of all science and mathematics.
To say that there is no evidence of determinism because it’s a philosophical idea, is to say that there is no evidence that earth is an ellipsoid, because ellipsoid is just a concept made by humans.
Evidence for determinism is everywhere… only real argument against determinism is quantum physics. And in reality even that does nothing to provide evidence against determinism. AT BEST you can say that at the quantum level randomness works just as well as determinism.
But as for why? The uncertainty principle. In short if you know the momentum of a particle, you can’t know its position. Arguably this is a limitation on our observations abilities rather than an argument against determinism.
To summarize, there is plenty of evidence for determinism, and there is only a “it could work down here if it was random” against it. Which could just as easily be some sort of epistemic or technological limitation.
And of course argument for randomness… is also not compatible with free will. If everything is random, are your choices. Meaning you can’t choose… you are just a passenger.
And even if you took an indeterministic approach and dismissed this, randomness would still not be any proof for free will.
Also, subjective/objective purpose for philosophy? Thats debtable. I say it can be anything you want… why put rules in places where they serve to only limit us?
Why constrain our thoughts and relegate them to just… logical fantasies? Why not try to base our thoughts on evidence? This seems like a rather arbitrary limitation I have no intention of obeying.
My pronouns are absurdist/determinist
@62sy I agree, it's also worthy to note that any religion that declares free will and has an all-powerful God, one of which is all knowing and can see into the future, effectively rendering free will obsolete if all our actions have a set end result, is contradictory to the claim and thus can't argue against determinism.
Besides, determinsm is used within many sciences already, especially in fields regarding psychology. Understanding that people's behaviors are chains of causes and effects helps to figure out and resolve their problems.
no way, bro really needs to chill with that uploading schedule. I havent gotten time to go through last video and he got one up already. Sick content man keep it up
So you sitting on my face right?
Fr, mans is on the content GRIND
He’s not working too hard, lots of Chat GPT here.
@@jacobschroeder5615 how?
@@jacobschroeder5615 Fr, I could very easily hear that
a philosophy tierlist is like a slap in the face to philosophy as a concept
That's just, like, your philosophical take man.
Philosophy is irrational, like promiscuity
Philosophy is just how people rationalize their own suffering. I believe our perception should constantly be challenged to find what we truly believe in. So why not slap philosophy in the face?
@@pocxi46 it's not
@@Alex-ms9tk”Philosophy is irrational” is a philosophical claim in of itself buddy 😂
Having every big word mispronounced was distracting at first, but it’s kind of nice to be reassured I’m not listening to AI.
😅 What if the AI were trained a bit to mispronounce words? I'm only kidding in this specific example (I'm pretty confident he's a real boy (Pinocchio reference)), but training an AI to mispronounce words could easily be done. Making it convincing would be a little harder, but with time & effort, almost anything is possible.
We're nearing a time when & where anything online could be AI-genned. We're nearing a time when & where our smartphones or similar devices might carry powerful AIs on them that generate all the content we might ever need. Soon, gone might be the days of servers providing us most of our content. Instead, AI could generate in real-time more content than you and I could ever consume in our lifetimes. 😅 What an absurd future lies ahead of us.
Something like the internet might exist for along time; however, instead of it being used as a highway for content as it is now, it might be better used to update all the many, smaller AIs that exist on smaller devices than the large servers that house Big AI. The Big AI will outdo humanity in math, science, and arts. It will update the smaller AIs via some kind of internet connection. The small AIs can provide us with evergreater math, science, arts, content, media, guidance, and so on.
All of this is speculative, but it will be interesting to see how things play out in the next few decades. I tell folks over and over, "The 21st century will be the most absurd and surreal century of humanity ever." I'm grateful and excited to be alive during this time. So long as I live, I will get to observe some of the most absurd change in human history.
A bit of apprehension though: will humanity be relevant in coming decades or centuries? 😅 If the ASI (s for super) outdoes humanity in math, science, art, and so on, then what do humans have to exist for? 😅 This is possibly the most absurd part of it to me: humans have made a future where we humans aren't needed anymore.
Just by the sheer size of this response...... my lord......I guess it fits on a video about philosophy
@@Paraselene_Taois humanity relevant now? Is, besides the natural, already existing powers that are greater than ourselves, the one we create ourselves the one that makes us irrelevant?
@@102728
Yes, I see what you mean. In the scope of the universe, yeah, humanity barely existed. We're on one small rock orbiting a normal looking star, and that star orbits a normal galaxy with roughly 200 billion other stars, and that galaxy is one of roughly 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe, and the whole universe could be much larger than our observable bubble, and the observable bubble might be splitting into astronomically large numbers of universes in a Many Worlds model or it might all be existing in complicated superposition or something else comical. It's all laughably absurd: we barely exist(ed).
Here on the little planet, though, we've had a fairly measurable effect. We have to consider it in relative terms. Did humanity affect the universe? Practically, no, we haven't. Did humanity affect the little planet we live on? Practically, yes, we have and continue to do so. We're living in the Anthropocene: different kinds of man-made pollution & evidence of humanity exist; CO2 & methane at almost unseen levels in hundreds of thousands of years or possibly millions of years are causing global climate change; microplastics and "forever" chemicals everywhere; nearly all surface of Earth has been touched by mankind except maybe portions of Antarctica; we're the only known species to make it (however briefly, and some people consider it a conspiracy) to the Earth's moon; we're the only species on this planet to split and fuse atoms (fission did happen naturally in Oklo, Gabon, and a few other places, but we've made a real point of making isotopes beyond 92 on the periodic table); biodiversity is crashing downwards at rates probably never seen outside mass extinction events; nearly all megafauna alive these days is food or work animals for us; massive swaths of land are monocultures; deforestation and urbanization is perfectly visible from satellite view; and there are more examples that I'm probably missing. 😅
So yeah, we're irrelevant to the universe, but we're kind of relevant to the Earth. Meanwhile, AI might be an intelligent tool that humanity makes that ends up making humanity irrelevant (back to default irrelevancy) on Earth. 😅 This is probably the most absurd part of it to me: we might close the loop of our relevancy soon. That we were relevant at all, that we did cause the Anthropocene extinction/calamity event on Earth, and that we might fix the problem ourselves by giving balanced control over to our ASI systems. Maybe everything returns to normal: humanity never was relevant to the universe.
Have I made sense? I hope you have a good day.
all of his info was WRONG tho.
Camus' absurdism is not about finding personal meaning in the absurdity of existence. It is about rejecting the need for a meaning and finding fulfillment in not needing an inherent purpose. (This is especially emphasized in The Stranger)
True. I dont think the person who made the video really did in depth research on the philosophies ranked in the video, and, more importantly, research into the histories and consequences of theses philosophies. For example, ranking nihilism at the lowest tier is extremely odd, since nihilism partially birthed theistic existentalism, demarcated by Soren Kierkeegard, which birthed absurdism (sort of atheistic existentialism), by Albert Camus. I also do think its very weird to rank stuff like utilitarianism and stoicism in the same tier list. Utilitarianism is more of a societal standard at this point whereas stoicism is more of a personal guideline for each to follow individiually. They have different implications in the world and they cant be compared to one-another.
Yes I agree
It‘s very cute to see how invested you are in philosophy and was able to agree on a lot of your opinions :)
Until watching this video i didnt know what to call it, but now i can say have a pretty nihilistic view on life and I've always felt very freed because of it. Believing there is no set meaning of life means that I can create my own meaning to my life. It's not about whats expected of me or searching for meaning, but more about how I choose to live my short little life on this floating rock. I've never understood how there even could be a meaning to being alive, we're just here and all we can do it make the best of it
You are referring to existentialism, that's when you realize life has meaning and you must create your own meaning.
Nihilist believe there is no meaning and it cannot be create because life is inherently meaningless
That pretty not nihilistic and basically exactly what existentialism is! 'A nihilist believes that life is meaningless and the only known truth is the existence of the self. An existentialist believes that life is meaningless too, but that meaning can be created by the individual'. Visit the existentialism subreddit if you want to learn more.
When you come home you will treat your children, your spouse and family as if they were meaningful. In other words, you'll only be a Nihilist when you have to philosophize, but will act out the opposite. You'll only acknowledge Nihilism when it fits you.
Your production has gotten way more upscale. I like the old and new content of you dawg keep it up
but all of his info was just incorrect. this guy has never even picked up a philosophy textbook, and all his terms are mixed up. how can anyone like these videos
Stoicism is the most important philosophy I ever embraced. It saved me from misery by allowing me to let go. Glad it was in S tier.
Here's a better actual ranking of philosophies by their importance and means of achievement in human consciousness rather than what's a better or happier way to live:
S-Tier (Profound, transformative impact across disciplines)
1. Existentialism - Shaped modern philosophy, literature, and psychology through its focus on meaning and freedom.
2. Stoicism - Timeless philosophy with growing relevance for mental resilience and well-being.
A-Tier
3. Nihilism - Central to existential thought and modern critiques of value systems.
4. Deontology - Key in ethics and political philosophy through its focus on duties and moral laws.
5. Utilitarianism - Influences public policy, economics, and ethics with its focus on outcomes.
B-Tier (Significant but limited practical reach)
6. Absurdism - Builds on existentialism but with a narrower focus on the human struggle for meaning.
7. Rationalism - Foundational to epistemology, though its strict reliance on reason faces modern critiques.
C-Tier (Relevant but with controversial or narrow influence)
8. Empiricism - Historically important but now integrated into scientific methods rather than standing alone.
D-Tier (Controversial with limited acceptance in academic philosophy)
9. Objectivism - Popular in specific circles but criticized for oversimplifying ethical and philosophical questions.
Making a philosophy tier list is one thing.
Pronouncing The Stranger's protagonist's name as "More Assault" and laissez-faire as "lee-ehz faire" is straight up criminal.
☝🤓 ackchually its "lay-say-fair"
native english speakers are almost incapable of pronouncing french words... I tried to correct a teacher once on pronunciation...it did not go well💀
@dapeyt1099 it's not
Idk, I feel like nihilism is a very healthy state of mind for anxious people. Normal people will go "nothing matters :(" while anxious people will go "nothing matters! :D" and actually feel free to work on the same things normal people feel the need of an external value of existence to work on.
No, if you genuinely acted out Nihilism and thought about it during every single interaction you ever have you will become depressed. That's just inevitable. What you're doing is pretending like life is meaningful when it fits you to gain positive emotions, but only accept meaninglesness when it's about philosophizing.
@@tubsy. all I hear is a lot of whinging from someone who is upsetti spaghetti 😘
All I see is intellectual dishonesty @@chukyuniqul
@@tubsy. could be. or maybe I'm different from you and can accept the inherent meaninglessness in life and see it as conferring my choices their own special meaning.
@@tubsy.
OP's point is probably nihilism through thought.
Not everybody goes straight to depression when you expect less through a basis of a reality check, this might be a solution to anxiety and overthinking.
What you're talking about is nihilism through action, which is dangerous because it may affect other people.
Nihilism always factors in realism which basically counters social rules created for everyone to obey. The only extreme side of it is it can be used to force anyone into anarchy which is ironic since it now has a "meaning" when taken into action.
this somehow appeared on my recomended list and I pretty much enjoyed, great content, keep it up!
Terrible video. Half the info was straight up wrong, he never lists sources, he misuses terms, mispronounces names, never uses evidence, etc.
Albert Camus wasn’t an existentialist his friends Jean Paul Sartre was. they had a lot of philosophical disagreements.
I thoroughly enjoyed this and honestly want you to make more tier list video because I could feel how much you enjoyed making this tier video
I would definitely be interested in seeing a part 2!
While I may not agree with every ranking i certainly respect this tier list.
I am very curious to see where you would rank moral relativism
This video is kind of funny because a lot of these philosophies overlap in profound ways. It's unlikely that someome could hold all of these philosophies at the same, but many overlap in significant manners.
he also just gets 80% of all his info wrong, like it was chatpgt or wikipedia. He misuses terms and clearly does not understand the different branches of philosophy or the difference between truth proposition and responses. Terrible video.
@@JNB0723
I largely agree. This content wasn't high quality. I was going to critique his recently published "philosophy ice berg" video, but as I was listening and writing notes, I had too much to critique. I was writing pages of notes with timestamps. I think I had four pages of notes from the first hour of the three-hour long video. It was crazy. I don't even have a degree in philosophy. I just like the field, and I've listened to or read maybe a thousand hours of philosophy lectures, books, and commentary over the last four years or so.
Because they're all nonsense
That's because some of those "philosophies" are just sub branches of the same philosophies. Absurdism is a branch of nihilism.
Some are also orthogonal and at various scales.
"Low level" stuff like empirism and rationalism question the very nature of existence, understanding and reasoning.
"High level" stuff like stoicism, utilitarianism consider those subjects more or less covered and question what a person should be doing.
It's the difference between:
"Should I help my neighbor ?"
And
"Do I even exist ?"
Obviously different levels of questioning.
@@Alex-ms9tk Newsflash you live by a philosophy 🤦🏼
So absurdism is basically just nihilism without the meaningless part.. like there's no universal meaning but we can create our own meaning by embracing the absurdity of life and just moving on.
Yes, like the joker. Existentialism is the healthier path tho.
@ServingSoul In the big picture, it is. But if you can bring the belief of meaning to either yourself or others, that meaning is a thing and it is meaningful.
@ServingSoul Isn't it natural to yearn for meaning? Otherwise I would just decide to end myself immediately on the spot instead of suffering for absolutely no reason.
@ServingSoul And how is monotheism also not a form of cope? You'd be putting your faith in something that might not be true as opposed to finding meaning in accepting that there might be no universal meaning and just setting your own purpose.
@ServingSoul How do you know that independent is an entity like god? And what if we are insignificant to that god? There could be many other possibilities and nothing can be said for certain so I'd say it's all ultimately a meaningless struggle. And by creating my own meaning, I meant setting a purpose for the time I'm here if there is no universal purpose instead of giving in to nihilism and just ending myself. Like I said in my original comment, it's basically just nihilism without the meaningless part or rather without accepting the meaningless part.
Enjoyed the vid, subscribed and looking forward to more like this!
everything was wrong.
I feel that only a younger person first learning about philosophy would care to identify strongly with one school of thought or another. The older you get, the more you realize that each philosophy exists because no single one is sufficient to truly reflect what this universe and our place in it, is, either as individuals or a species. There is no harm in learning about it all…far from it…and the more you learn, the more you will find you may be a absurd-utilitarian-objective-stoic, or some other mix that makes the most sense to you at a specific time in your life and that this is forever subject to change with experience. Enjoyed the video…thanks.
Thanks for making this. You’ve saved me reading some books
To say that determinism has little evidence for is a bit bias to say no? While no one claim proves determinism, many united fields such as neurological, psychological, sociological, genes to environment and many more would support determinism. Moreover, there is no consensus to define free will making me believe that it exists out of appeal to intuition
Its all subjective.
definetely
@@landenmoudy5749I recommend Sapolsky's works as foundation for a determinist mind and the inexistence of free will or agency.
It doesn't matter if free will exists or not, it doesn't make a difference
Yeah i find that weird free will has always been a wishy washy concept and everything we can find supports a more deterministic view
I like how you added your thought and critique after each philosophy!
I would argue that Nihilism should be in highier tier... But it doesn't matter, so i wont.
First time I've seen a tier list about philosophy hahaha. You want to know my thoughts? Well, I think they are all equal, one philosophy will not stand out above the others. The reason? Its situational. Yes, adopting a philosophy is based on the situation you're in or type of person you are.
Nihilism - The Art of Nothing. (Extreme Philosophy) 'Despair'
This philosophy is the hardest to understand because it can be quite difficult accept that nothing you do is meaningful. Those whose worldview follows this philosophy are people who stay true to themselves or are narcissistic. The reason is simple, the philosophy is essentially giving you an empty canvas to paint on. It's like a 'god mode' in games or 'creative mode' where nothing you do has any consequence because everything is meaningless. On the other hand, if you don't know how to paint, you will be swallowed up by the emptiness and fall into despair. Its a philosophy that requires you to go through the 5 stages of grief, and is best for someone who has less empathy or extremely high self awareness to maximise their creativity and potential. In a sense its very pure. Life is utterly meaningless, therefore everything and anything is possible.
Absurdism - Acceptance of Human's Absurdity (Hard Philosophy) 'Hope'
If Nihilism requires you to go through the 5 stages of grief, Absurdism is the same. The only difference is the outcome. Instead of going 'god mode' or 'creative mode' in a game after accepting that's everything is meaningless, you choose Survival mode. You may meet a lot of setbacks and often question the purpose of your existence but that does not stop you from living life you want to. Given the previous example, you are also given a blank canvas to paint on. However, instead of staying in the room to paint on your canvas, you walk out of the room and visit other 'artists' which in turn, inspires you to paint on canvas. Unlike nihilism, your canvas may end up being torn/wrinkled and even have stains but at the end of the day, does it matter? You have made something you can be proud of. There may be different art styles on your canvas, a mix of watercolor and oil painting and it may not have the purity of nihilism yet still have a unique charm to it. Even though everything is meaningless in the end, as long as it's meaningful to yourself, that's enough.
Existentialism - Existence (Extreme Philosophy) 'Why?"
Only people with a certain level of self awareness can reach this point of thought. Similiar to both Nihilism and Absurdism, the thing that makes existentialism different is that rather than seeking the meaning of life or thinking of life as meaningless, they ask 'Why?'. It's not a matter of whether it means something or not, its more of a curiosity for the reason behind the existence of their consciousness. People will suffer from existential dread when they cannot find the answer. The Solution? Create the answer for yourself. In a game, its equivalent to going for 'Adventure Mode'. You don't just survive or exist, you create a place for yourself. If Nihilism and Absurdism depends on a canvas premade for them, Existentialism creates the canvas and paints it for themself. Sorry if my analogy is bad, I don't know how else to explain the difference.
I think each of these three philosophies have beauty in their difference and are therefore on equal ground. Of course life is not a game, but this is the only analogy I could think of that is easy to relate to.
Utilitarianism - For the Majority (Easy Philosophy) 'Mutual Benefit'
This is one of the easier philosophies to understand so I doubt I need to elaborate more on it. This is a philosophy that depends on society/others around you. In theory, it sounds great but its a conditional philosophy. Setting self-imposed rules based on the majority to benefit the majority has a lot of flaws. Such a philosophy is prone to contradiction and is more of a fantasy than anything else. Will you save a small group of critically endangered species or 100,000 people? Some people would say that saving an important species of plants/animals can save more humans in the future while others might argue that humans lives are worth more than those critically endangered species. Overall, its an unrealistic philosophy with good intentions.
Objectivism - Facts (Easy Philosophy) 'Objectivity'
Very interesting yet contradictory philosophy. This is a philosophy that is implemented everywhere as a standard. Everyone must conform to the rules of 'language' for us to write a sentence that can be understood by another. There are so many examples of these and personally, I think it has been good for human advancement as a whole. Unfortunately, for objectivism to be possible, one must be educated on the 'standard'. Ignorance is the greatest enemy of objectivism.
Determinism - Fate (Hard Philosophy) 'Luck'
An interesting philosophy that follows the 'law of casualty'. I won't be surprise if it was born out of science. Due to the intangible nature of this philosophy, it's quite difficult to talk about. However, if you want my thoughts on one thing they got correct - Everything in this world is connected. Does it affect our free will? That's hard to say. Think of Schrodinger's Cat. Rather than asking if the cat is dead or alive, for determinism it's better to consider who put the cat in the box. It's all strings linked together.
Empirism - Physical (Very Easy Philosophy) 'Experience'
Despite it's limitations as a philosophy, it is one of the philosophies which is applied by instinct. It's simplicity makes it a basic philosophy for us to understand the world as we grow up. I think that it's simplicity is the greatest advantage AND disadvantage of empirism.
Rationalism - Intuition (Very Easy Philosophy) 'Reason'
It is a philosophy that focuses on the process of a thought. Yes, it is often opposed by empirism, but the reason why they are so similar is because one cannot exist without the other. It's like asking the question "chicken or egg, which came first?" You won't know the fire can burn you until you get burned. However, once you have that knowledge that "fire can burn you", will you still go towards the flames? There are warning signs that are listed there, don't climb over the fence. People with existing knowledge, can assume that the sign is there for safety, even if they don't climb the fence. But for the fence to be placed there, with that specific warning signs, shows that people has done so before and may have encountered an accident. (Experience). So personally, I think one cannot exist without the other.
Stoicsm - Virtue (Hard Philosophy) 'Harmony'
It is a combination of different kind of philosophies, neither denying nor agreeing with extreme topics but taking things as it is, within the limits.
I had fun writing this and note that I have never studied philosophy. This is my understanding after hearing your introduction and might not be accurate. I feel like each of them are applicable to different people and to rate one over another feels odd. It's not wrong just... eh. Someone people are born with little to no empathy might find it difficulty to understand certain philosophies and vice versa. Some of them is also situational so I feel like its not quite...mmm a fair comparison? Maybe if you are making a tier list for a specific aspect of each like practicality, general understanding etc...
Hey, I really loved this video. And I agree with your tier list. Thank you for explaining these concepts in such a wonderful way. I usually get confused but your explanation was wonderful🤝
Dude poor nihilism. The first philosophy to get cancelled cause on the surface it seemed rather bleek. Its own creator called it a disease rather than a philosophy. A disease once overcome leads its user to an ideal place.
Moral Nihilism HAS MADE ME SO HAPPY I CAN PUT MY OWN MEANING TO THINGS AND HAS MADE ME STOP FEELING BAD ABOUT THINGS OR GUILT BECAUSE GOOD AND BAD DONT EXIST
Good and bad don't exist?? How? Explain to me, I'm very curious
@@SimoneGermani04 . Once I stopped I lost all feelings of guilt and empathy and shame it has made life way better I don’t feel bad about a thing!
Good and bad don’t exist they are just terms that humans and religion made to control us. The only true law is the law of nature. What you view as good or evil is based solely upon your own perception. What you view as evil, someone else may view as good. These concepts are purely human and cannot be observed in nature. Good and evil do not actually exist. And at a microscopic level everything is made out of particles in life and there are no good particles or bad ones they are just particles moving around. So weather you kill or steal it’s all fundamentally the same thing it’s all just particles moving around. And this goes much more deeper and it explains a lot in life and even after life.
EDIT: Some people are saying since I don’t believe in good or bad I’m okay with getting beat up and won’t view it as bad, but that’s a dumb way to look at it since good and bad don’t exist it can’t be good or bad but the only true terms is wanted or unwanted to that specific person. The person causing harm may view it as wanted to them but the victim may view it as unwanted but that does not mean it’s objectively “good” or “bad
@@SimoneGermani04The sense of morality is entirely subjective and unique to each individual human. There's no greater meaning to it, therefore it is of no more importance than the taste in food or clothing
Thousands of years of intelligent humans debating and experimenting makes a pretty strong set of societal morals. There’s obviously things that can be better and will eventually get there but if you do things without thought just because it doesn’t really matter you will run into problems. Like the reason you feel guilt is because humans evolved to work together to survive and if you do something that hurts the tribe you will hurt yourself in the process.
@@James-eh4ye I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing that they are made up I’m just saying good and bad don’t exist that’s a fact but it’s good for growth in a society, I’m just not pulled against the same moral constraints as everyone else
Pretty good video, but man the prunonciation of french words and names is balls to the walls crazy.
Definitely want to see more, maybe even a deep dive into some of them. One thing I think would make this video perform better (it deserves so much more than 25k views) is maybe titling it for what it is, rather than making existential crisis as the focal point ( but then again maybe I'm wrong) anyways, please do more on the philosophy topic. Thanks for putting in the work for us to enjoy!
As a Stoic. I absolutely love how you explained it sir. Bravo. I am a indian Stoic. Turning my mind off and focusing on the present really helps.
Id love it if you included some eastern philosophies if you were to do this again, like buddhism, taoism, confucianism etc. could at an interesting twist to the video and introduce people to a different aspect of philosophy
Buddhism isn't fully east asian btw
It is technically Indian, as it originated there, but the Chinese added a lot to it
@@Nobody_247 would indian philosophies not count as eastern? How would you categorise them?
@@JonTonyJim The term “Eastern Philosophy” is usually used for Chinese and other East Asian countries such as Japan and South East Asia.
But if we talk about the outside perspective, I guess India is considered Eastern as well.
Just replace eastern with Asian so Mr perfect won't get so mad smh lol
There is also Optimistic Nihilism. Leaning more towards Camus' Absurdism, the individual doesn't despair in the meaninglessness of it all but doesn't pursue meaning like other Absurdist philosophies. The Optimistic Nihilist tries to live their life in a way that makes them happy and proud; there is no direct search for meaning but it is often created along the way.
That's an utilitarian perspective ("I want philosophy to make me proud and happy") or maybe an hedonistic one ("I'll do whatever makes me feel good").
Also I don't see what role optimism plays into this.
objectivism in A tier is just crazy
Ayn Rand fanboy
Its incredibly clear he just read the wiki page for it and heard "freedom" thought it sounded good and put it in a because of that
Subjectivism is so much better, one could argue that subjectivism even has objectivism in mind
Let me guess: you're a ⬅️👈 wing person, aren't you?
Yeah i can't take a channel that puts objectivism in A tier seriously. Like how do you have a video ranking philosophies and then put one of the worst and most harmful ones in A tier 💀
A good advice is to never base your life on ideologies. They are just concepts. They all make sense in a vacuum, they are the food for your conscious mind but they are just that. A tool. An analogy. Don't put labels on yourselves just because you think it's cool to act or think in a certain way. Always preserve your skepticism, senses, emotions and logic. You are a complex creature and there will never be a rulebook for life. You will always need to be awake, alert and ready to make conscious effort to do the right thing in the right time. There is no way around it.
Here's some thoughts:
1. Nihilism doesn't have to be doomy-gloomy. Although it had been touched upon in the video, I feel that constructive nihilism was kind of dismissed and diminished while it can be a very valid personal philosophy.
2. Determinism doesn't *necessarily* imply lack of free will (although that's a longer discussion - inquire if willing).
3. Rationalism should be the basis for lawmaking and establishing rules of managing societies.
4. Stoicism is a good (best?) philosophy for personal purposes, day-to-day growth practice, being a good member of society kind of thing.
Discuss (or not, you know, whatever).
Yeah
1) nihilism is the most misrepresented philosophy out there, and I feel like it's the very basis of many other philosophies ending up on the very top of the list
2) determinism is one of those philosophies people desperately want to discredit. But in reality, it is the most probable conclusion based in the evidence we have (or actually non-existence of free will is, rather than precisely determinism)
The ranking of Absurdism and nihilism is ridiculous , you cannot be taken seriously with this man , and saying nihilism is about despair is even worse . Really hope people won't take this video seriously.
Funny, it seems like you’re taking it very seriously
From my point of view, absurdism is just the inevitable conclusion of nihilism. If nothing matters then you are free to decide what matters to you. Your belief in meaning *is* meaning because the only thing that shapes your world is the way you see it. If you believe in something that something is as true as it gets, and it doesn’t matter if it isn’t because nothing matters right?
you start creating your own veliefs after nihilism, absurdism is not the only way, it is just a fresh boot to start over@@nitaigur6990
@@nitaigur6990No, Existentialism is the natural conclusion of Nihilism. Absurdism is the result of seeing Nihilism and descending into madness to cope and use meaningless to achieve happiness. However; Existentialists, or Active Nihilists, further employ philosophy to defeat the meaninglessness of Nihilism by creating meaning for themselves and with the aid of others, often employing principles from other forms of philosophy to establish even truer morality.
Yeah I agree I kinda forgot about existentialism but I think it’s more similar to my conclusion than absurdism
Stoicism needed an asterisk about the fake version that podcasters push where it’s just about claiming self actualization, but in reality is just whining about other people not having the same mindset as you.
By its own nature, most people's flaunting of "stoic" values is against the philosophy itself.
Stating that Utilitarianism is not worth living by because we don't live in a perfect world is ignoring the fact that the imperfections of life are the reason for the philosophy in the first place. (Really, suffering and self awareness are the catalysts for all philosophy.) Maximizing wellbeing for humanity given the inherent suffering of life, an impossible utopia, and limited resources is literally the point of utilitarianism, not a contradiction to it.
Utilitarianism is basically the theory. Like in math or physics, the results are perfect, but they are impossible in real life due to its inherent flaws. That doesnt mean following the laws of math and physics havent resulted in working great results.
I think people use the excuse of "you can never achieve perfection" either cannot bother putting the effort utilitarianism requires. Or just believe in a more individualistic philosophy, since utilitarianism is based on the maximum common wellbeing.
@why_oh_elle True. In a personal sense, some might say not to bother to shoot for the stars since stardom is so unlikely. Even if you fall short, you'll end up much further along than someone who self-defeated and never began in the first place. Just because perfection is not possible doesn't mean it can't be used as the model for what to strive for.
While it may be hard to prove determinism as a whole, I believe it's easier to see that there is no free will than to prove that free will exists, no matter how you view it, there always seems to be either a reason for our thoughts and our actions or they are random, neither of which seem to involve any free will on our part.
Philosophy tierlist is a hilarious concept and I'm here for it
I’m an nihilist-absurdist. But before all that, I am a contextualist.
Everything within context.
"I'm a nihilist-absurdist. But before all that, I am."
-OmeganKryist, an existencialist.
Isn't being a Nihilist-Absurdist just an absurdist?
@@Wulk pretty much yeah. It’s mostly to say I am on the fence between both and don’t make that big of a distinction between them.
I am not an existentialist though purely through me being a determinist on the same grounds that I am an atheist (essentially I see it as the non position, agnostic with lower burden to assume such doesn’t exist).
Your use of the word "contextualist" is interesting. I guess it translates to "constructivist" in my personal lexicon, but you might name it contextualist as you like. 😅
I really like George Kelly's Personal Construct Theory, but hardly anyone talks about him. His work helped lead to Cognitive Behavioral Theory. Basically, humans are scientists who constantly think and perceive the world through mental constructs. Mental constructs are pseudo-dichotomous spectrums that describe a thing: good-bad, light-dark, happy-sad, interested-bored, and any other mental construct. People build worldviews with these mental constructs. We're constantly experimenting: we test the usefulness of our constructs against the real world. It's possible to develop new and useful mental constructs throughout life. Also, we can borrow mental constructs from other people and keep them I'm our minds.
Overall, I like Personal Construct Theory a lot, but hardly anyone talks about it. To me, a responsible person is one who recognizes what mental constructs they're using, what mental constructs other folks use, and finally how do we help make these worldviews made of mental constructs work together in a harmonious manner. 😅
@@Paraselene_Tao Yeah suppose that is somewhat similar to what I refer to as contextualism, least adjacent to what I mean.
I sum it up as thus: “It’s a rejection of absolutes. It is to say that objectivity is not an inherent property of things, but rather a property derived from the relationship between things.”
It’s related to relativism, but with the intent to have a foundation to which we can understand things in a concrete or objective manner.
I'm actually a firm believer in Autism.
Personally, I think if you’re a man in today’s modern world, stoicism is objectively the best philosophy to adopt. Be like Geralt, Chief, Ghost, Marston, Kratos. Accept the absolute dawg inside of yourself and learn to control that beast and to channel that energy into your art or work or both.
Today man's are hiding rather than controlling their emotion women will cry feel better and learn men will hide everything until they explode or will transform it to anger
That is so fuckin stupid. In today’s modern society any man should be able to adopt any philosophy they desire. Stoicism is corny and just another way of acting like a “ s i g m a “
Agreed, even things like absurdism are based on feelings, the feeling "well man, life it's kinda crazy", that's why absurdism, leaves to some general good feeling ideology. On the other hand Stoicism recognises the value of the human, and that we loose are temper and can be quite irrational at times, but controlling oneself, knowing every extension of your being, that's why more loving and virtuos than any popular philosophical ideology
True but don't forget that Stoicism is also based on feelings, what makes it special is it teaches self-improvement and control over your own emotions compared to other philosophies/ideologies who are too busy trying to find answers to the questions provided by nihilism.
@@Zero-zr6xx shots fired, mate!^^
Started watching this vídeo to help me sleep, it was so interesting that in the morning i continued to watch it from the moment i stoped last night, great video brother
Awesome you put Absurdism as S-Tier :D I love Camus' works and also find that philosophy very meaningful to my life.
I feel like this tier list is kinda odd (rating absurdism as top and nihilism on the bottom is strange). Furthermore I feel like some concepts are not understood/explained clearly. For example, absurdism is not about finding a meaning in the "non meaning of the life" which is what seems to be explained here but accepting the absence of meaning and living with it. Camus says "The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy." It does not mean that one should find meaning in the struggle, just like Sisyphus does not have any meaning in its constant struggle, but more that the struggle itselft should be sufficient to be happy and fulfill our heart, without the need of meaning.
That video is a joke on so many levels
Apart from the fact ranking philosophies is a problem because it implies some meta-philosophy that is never really aknowledged.
The Ayn Rand stuff is a joke, it's just a hodgepodge of what Ayn Rand thought at the time.
The take of Determinism is nonsense. Saying it has no proof is laughable because it is probably the one philosophy that is the most rooted in science. Their are counterarguments, but they are of the quantum physics type not the "I have free will because I can do what I want" type. Saying it ain't good because most people don't believe it is ridiculous.
Exactly
Or it could be based on ones opinion and personal feelings? Also the whole argument against free will is asinine, the argument against it is thought and self reflection. People go against their basic hormonal urges everyday. It's cringe and Emo.
@@jackalzirson2631 Show me a single cell or atom inside your body which defies physics.
@@SQAProd show me a single study which shows a 100% consistent emotional pattern between twins when confronted with the same stimuli.
@@jackalzirson2631 sigh...
twin studies are irrelevant. Determinism doesn't require identical outcomes from similar starting conditions in complex systems. It's about causality, not simple predictability.
Each twin becomes a unique entity the moment they're born, creating distinct causal chains.
Identical twins, sharing the same DNA, become distinct entities the moment they start interacting with their environment. Each decision, each experience, each fleeting thought creates a unique trajectory that can never be exactly duplicated. Ironically you just made an argument for, not against determinism.
-----
Although let me rephrase the last part because it doesn't sound quite right.
"Each decision" sounds like an entity in the system has some autonomy over the decision making process.
It doesn't.
The entity isn't really "doing" the deciding. Instead, it's more like the environment and interactions are constantly shaping the entity. We're not the authors of our thoughts and actions, but rather the product of an unbroken chain of prior causes.
If you put nihilist in F tier even below. Nihilist just accept it
Stoics say it's ok while the world burn
I've always liked to think that Absurdism is Nihilism with a propeller hat on
I find great comfort in nihilism. When nothing holds intrinsic meaning, I feel liberated to live life on my own terms, pursuing the things I truly desire. In my opinion, it's a really good way to view life. :)
Absurdism and vintriliquism
Experience
Meaningless: Experience and prejudice. To accept sight and illusion in the same relativity and not be a slave.
Slavery: To be free from the growth of intellect. Experience free from understanding and memory as triviality.
Memory: reduced down to recollection without review, in a universe of consistent physics; a triviality of organic invincibility. Experience rendered down to self-sensual recall without existential considerations; meaningless.
Prejudice: to accept the delusion that no human can consider and choose. For experience to outweigh sense and sensible prudence and suggest in definite physicality that humanity is as inorganic as the constructs we purpose.
Triviality to the concept of Slave, is Mass to Gravity, either one hypothetical without the physics of Trivialization or Mass. One requiring the circumstance of genesis, the other requiring absence of necessity; Nativitus Ancillae.
Relativity: the universe revolves around you, but only if you watch with others; relativity born of tripartite geometry; self (observing), other (conferring), objective (occurring): co-intimate experience and co-context.
Relativity: all things can happen to you, most didn't, you only know what you think, you only think what you can hypothesize, all understanding revolves around perception and interaction. Understanding and position; relative.
Hypothesis: a proposition of a form unsensed in the physical, in the definition "scientific" it is the Fructus Ventris Physica Quantitatis; the guessable, potent in measurability, invisibilia ad carnalis, observationis codificationem.
Hypothesis: a concept just beyond sensible observation but within sensory or facultative relativity to intimate comprehension; the space an observer feels safe to coniectura didicit doctrina. A cerebrum exercitium.
Meaningless: the words of any personal exposition without the person. Interpretation of intended and intimate communication removed from its physical occurrence. To hypothesize in the spirit of Freud, all are I.
Meaningless: a description of a building behind it's façade to a man on the street. Definition without sensible example; invisibility bestowed by the suggestibility of the potent potentiality of descriptionem alienum.
Reference without experience, definition without context, experience without definition, definition without reference; to theorize on fancy, the possibilities of cause bereft of "scientific" prejudice towards provable.
A description of the unseen to the comfortable in sense, and sensibility; hypothesis delivered socially by the
perfecte mediocris to their perfecte mediocris aetatis. Interest and applause humilis, the sermo aequalis.
Contemporary communication, external warehouse for internal deliberation. Deliberatio externa by contrast is built on extra-contemporary, the functional in sense and nerve unwilling to mal-hypothesize popularis prudentia.
By definition a contemporary is both naturally occurring and actively intersecting, or it is a generational (illusory), built of temporal coincidence. Meaningless in contemporations intimate, capable of saying they share an age.
The addict kind
Lonliness is a myth spread by the ill, unwelled by popular delusion (self accepted).
The sickly, pulsing out their (self) comforting radiance, the marking of a predators territory. A light to shine on all slow enough to not revile it for it's false and reason less eviction of self from capability.
The prey; uninitiated youth, vulnerable innocence. Argue not with the aged (or experienced) self-convinced. The miracle of emotional conformation of physical fact convincing to the unknowing, under steady application, overly sweetened (for the self) ideals of pleasure and comfort, the prey forget they knew a peace that didn't requiring feeding or explanation.
The virtue of falsely buoyed stability grinding the ignorant, young, and uncatered, all taken in by the sin of kindness as apex. To gift the sickness that tells a human "human emotion in the negative is unnecessary and beyond comprehension or tolerance".
To know that there are those in the world of humanity, who in their generationally refined adherence to parasite coddling, will continue to teach the youth "drugs are a healthy and functional right of aware and intelligent people" is a mark of shame in this age of our collective development.
The truth of human being betrayed by the proposed necessity of stimulation beyond the natural state, it's supposed normality vouchsafed; sobriety (health) ignored as a greater insanity than parasitism.
Salve the wounded pride of the vulgar addict, crucify the outspoken advocate of reassessment. This is not a statement of conflict, rather a portrait of the true and natural order in it's biased equality (comfort belonging to those who crave it most).
Exogeny
In an era of fear, humanity is tested. The exodus of existential loneliness is a heavy burden. Self-indulgent contemporary values, the pitiful death of the faithful gregarious martyr. Silenced in the passion of virtue, in the fury of desire as necessity, the ideal dies for the joy of man as the ideal devotee of nothing. Endogenous evidence of exogenous truth, derived from noble prejudiced purposes, refutes the pathologies of nature as the folly of prosaic and sensible sustainability. Euphoria at any cost, at any cost.
This video doesn't understand nihilism, especially since absurdism is a type of nihilism.
Oh shit, I fancy determinism. Damn it, I wish I could choose otherwise.
Determinism is connected to materialism, do u want to be idealist?
@@Tweindstien what are you on about?
@@placeholder3863 For me Determinism is true, because of dialetics. Dialetics is a materialistic view on world, because even though there was idealistic dialetics (Hegel), it came from evolution of philosophy,it will be objective idealism.
Idealism divides onto 2 main things (u can combine them) :
Subjective, Objective
Idealistic subjectivism is a philosophical perspective that combines elements of idealism and subjectivism. It posits that the only reality that exists is the mental or subjective experience of individuals. According to this view, the world is not an objective, independent reality, but rather a creation of the mind.Example : rose becomes red whne we look on it
Objective : there is an ideal spirit/god/world etc. while our world is existing because of that thing.Hegel had an idea of objective idealism, where a spirit evolved to get knowledge about itself (very short explanation).
🤗
@@Tweindstien interesting
@@Tweindstien I am a determinist as well, but I dont quite get what youre saying. Hegel's Dialectic deals with rhetorical theory- a subset of Aristotelian Dialectic Theory.
I feel like the absence of suffering, or happiness outweighing suffering is the only real goal.
Who cares how scientifically advanced we are or how much "good" we do if the suffering outweighs happiness.
Imagine the immeasurable years that went by before you were born. There were no suffering or discomfort.
Only reason you were born was because of the urges of the humans before you. Urges comes from wanting, and you would not want if you were already satisfied.
Either make life more positive than negative or you were better off never existing.
I gotta say I have to educate myself more on absurdism but stoicism is the way I go usually in my day to day life most of the time and I have to admit I think you made a very fair tier list. Great video, watched it all the way through
He must have never hear someone pronounce empiricism before….
In my opinion your philosophy in any given moment should be flexible, whatever serves your purpose at any given time. Some philosophies can do that at any time, but a lot cannot. Rather than Binary-thinking, combining multiple aspects of several philosophies to fit whatever serves your purpose is objectively superior. Rather than Black or White, combine the best aspects of the two and take the Gray route.
After a bit of research I believe I'm just describing Syncretism, correct me if that's wrong.
(I'm not very philosophical so please bash me in the comments for denouncing your views)
i also am not very philosophical, i'm here just to say that i agree
Finally someone who also thought of this idea, it's been on my head multiple times where people should just take the best ideas and lessons each philosophy gives and compile them into your own philosophy, that way you can fully adapt and become the best version of yourself.
bro you can't "objectively" rate philosophies, as long as they make sense within themselves they are valid.
womp womp
fool
here is my idea on determinism
The nature of free will is neither absolute nor completely absent-it exists within a bounded framework. Determinism governs the conditions of existence: for instance, a mute person cannot sing, or a person cannot act outside the limits of their capabilities and environment. However, within these boundaries, a multitude of choices are available. These choices are influenced by past experiences, genetic predispositions, and environmental factors, yet the exact outcomes remain unpredictable due to the complexity of interactions.
This model suggests that free will operates like a spectrum within deterministic constraints. While the future is shaped by the past, it doesn't mean it is entirely predetermined. Instead, the interplay of cause and effect opens up an "infinite range of possibilities" within given limits. Certain activities or reactions may be more predictable (e.g., a person flinching at a loud noise), but others are less so due to the unique, dynamic factors at play.
I love the way these are ranked! Placing Absurdism and Stoicism at S tier. If you strive to live the best life you can, without obsessing over trivial meaningless details, then that already is a very decent life to live!
Life is short enough as it is, just enjoy it as it lasts, and might as well be a moral person and leave a positive impact while you're at it!
You didn't understand half of these
So then do it better. Or can you not?
He couldn't even pronounce half of them.
Ok Professor, grace us with YOUR knowledge, oh wait, you know nothing
@@toxi6836 you don't need to be a chef to know that poop tastes bad.
@@sabnock31 yeah but you do need taste buds
Nihilism and objectism are atleast an S.
Have you really read objectivism? It's very difficult to find people that read all the novels and the two books that formalises the philosophy
well, this video is a neat introduction to some philosophical concepts, but there are some mistakes regarding e.g. utilitarianism or nihilism. Guys, if you read this please properly read up on concepts and don't talk after this guy. Many of these concepts don't exclude one another. E.g. nihilism is a possible consequence of skepticism, but many skeptics lower the epistemic standard in order to determine propositional knowledge and nihilism does not necessarily lead to amoralism, but many modern nihilists tend to moral emotivism, which means to have certain individual values and judge values as an expression of sympathy.
The problem of this tierlist and giving "objective opinions" whatever that means is comparing uncomparable philosophies. Some of these don't even adress the same field so it's just weird to compare them, plus like you said, they arent mutually exclusive
the algorithm did its work and now i am subbed
the video was terrible though.
Funny how I found this video while wearing my Marcus Aurelius T-shirt.
Stoicism is the wind in my sails I've been called to it ever since I did some deep thinking and realized I needed a philosophy to guide me down the path that best suited my needs.
"Look well into thyself for there is a source of strength that will always spring up if tho whilst always look."
You lost all credibility when you described "Objectivism" as inherently good
Oh man this comment section is wild. „Just because there IS no meaning doesn't mean you should not experience happiness“
Hate to break it to you guys, but your little happiness is worthless too and not worth going for. Nihilism rejects ALL value judgements. It's not freeing. Your „optimistic nihilism“ does not exist in academic philosophy, it is entirely contradictory. Beyond that, nihilism is doing gigantic leaps of faith because of gaps in knowledge. Educate yourselves ffs. Don't take that premise. That's the thing what's problematic with Camus too, giving in to nihilisms premise was a mistake and a matter of poor thinking.
Ayn Rand in A tier LMAO 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I mean guess I shouldn't have expected anything serious from such a video, but still 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Which books from Rand did you read?
Maybe a good principle to live by is-if you’re struggling to find a philosophical worldview-to work towards helping make it easier for others and future generations to find a more appropriate philosophy. Even if you’re a nihilist, as long as you’re not 100% sure that your philosophy is THE correct philosophy, anyone can proactively work towards making things easier for others to create better philosophies. I hope this makes sense. ✊✊✊
Hearing the idea of determinism "not having enough evidence" is very intriguing to me. I am a determinist because I see no evidence for the idea of free will, so it's interesting to see how a different perspective would view it. I see the idea that there is free will as the claim which has to be proved, while others see the lack of free will as the claim that has ti be proved.
OBJECTIVISM A TIER?? 😭😭😭 RATIONALISM B TIER???? They both belong in F im sorry I cant stand those. Especially objectivism
Nihilism is actually a liberation
It is at the bottom of every mental and real concept
It is the beginning and the end also for religions as Buddhism
I think you don’t really understand how much it is important
Anyway you are doing a Tierlist of philosophical theories!
I can take that with a lot of ironical meaning
Dude, a tier list is a personal ranking, it's not objective by any measure. It's just how he likes the philosophy based on his personal views and how much he read
@@xiiir838 de gustibus non disputandum est
Nah it's bullshit. I used to be a "nihilist" when I was 15 too. Either you grow out of it or you stay intellectualy atrophied.
I’m an absurdist to the core. Every insane random event can be seen as a Seinfeld bit if you view life as absurd. Life is went to be witness and experienced in all its insane glory. It will throw seemingly random encounters at you and you might aswell laugh at it then be depressed by the lack of control.
have you read "The myth of Sisyphus"?
I think we should consider this video as only a brief explanation of the most relevant philosophical trends because the form of evaluation shown in the video is subjective and is just a way to present information
I’ve recently begun incorporating a mix of Daoist and Buddhist philosophy into my life and it’s really improved my perspective on life. I’m more relaxed, less depressed, and just overall happier.
It seems like you don’t understand determinism and you just blatantly claimed that Free Will just exists because most people agree that it does. Determinism just means actions are caused by prior actions or events. And as far as we know and have observed there hasn’t been an uncaused event. There’s been “random” events in the sense they’re not predictable or it’s hard to find the cause for but to say free will exists, you’d have to demonstrate how. Personal will isn’t free will. Free will means you can free choose your will. If you’re just doing what your will is but can’t choose your will then you’re not choosing anything, your will has chosen for you and you’re just doing as your will does. It’s like if an ai followed its code. What experiment have you observed or done to demonstrate free will?
ok but why are we saying emfiricism and emferical.
Disliking straight away because i follower haterism
Half the info was straight up wrong, he never lists sources, he misuses terms, mispronounces names, never uses evidence, and compares different branches of philosophy (epistemology, ethics, meta-physics).
@@JNB0723the result of using chat gpt to make your videos
Spiritualism is missing here, but it is S-tier. The feeling of comprehending the incomprehensible, and being able to extract life values from mundane things is mesmerizing.
Absolutely love this video! I am also personally a big fan of absurdism. Although i only just recently bought Camus books