It's funny because the only time I actually feel closer to God is when I'm alone and can hear my own thoughts. Jordan Peterson had this analogy from pinocchio where Jiminy Cricket as a name for your conscience is not a mistake. JC = Jesus Christ. That voice in the back of your head, your conscience, the angel on your shoulder is God. Now, I'm not Christian, but I do believe in God. And this analogy just clicked everything for me. We are never alone, God is always by our side. And instead of stressing you out like you're being watched, this should actually relieve you. Because you'll know that you always have He is with you. You are not alone.
i belive that we are always being watched in the sense that we are mathematically being recorded by the law of physics, we just dont have the technology to read atoms firing backwards in reverse.
@@mariaaaa1128 if you throw a ball, it can hypothetically be predicted how its going to move on the atomic level based off of how it leaves your hands and how it interacts with the environment on the atomic level, if we can predict how it moves forwards , we can also predict the sequence backwards but we dont have supercomputers that can do it yet
If you think about hiding something, you think about fear or maybe you think you are doing something wrong. Either way we should all be authentic stay true to ourselves. Moder society is just arguing in circles. I think you should just look up qaballah and go straight to the truth. You will believe in God and have a true understanding, but if you go into this trying to prove God, you won't see it and if you do this for selfish reasons, you will pay. I am glad you are on the right train of thought more so than most people in the world.
Interesting topic man. You know that quote from Dostoevsky from Notes from Underground where he goes like that one also has things that he wouldn't reveal to himself instead of not just to others. Highly recommending this book .
What you describe as "you" is the super ego in Freud, right?. Not everything we dont want anyone to see is shameful, though. Masturbation is not imo sinful or shameful. No one wants to be watched using the toilet. It's about how we look when our bodies are seen and heard, and we're exposed, our bodily functions are exposed. A darker example might be if we are stressed out and scream at our elderly mother, or at a young child. We might, I hope, find that shameful when we recall it later, in bed that night. PS: Just wanted to mention, regarding your last video, that Diogenes actually lived well into his 80s, pretty remarkable in ancient times and given his "lifestyle" Love your videos and look forward to them00pp0pp0pp0ppppppp0lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll0
I’m pretty sure that when I say “you”, I am referring to that “higher” self, the superego in Freud. Yeah, I did think about the things that aren’t necessarily shameful, but that you wouldn’t want to show the world. I didn’t include it in the video, but you gave some good examples. On the topic of masturbation, I’m not sure if I think it’s shameful or not. I think it is shameful to be enslaved to your bodily and emotional impulses, but I guess you could make a conscious decision to go relieve yourself. However, I think I brought up pornography in the video, which I DO think is shameful. And yeah, Diogenes is such a crazy character 😂
What happens when there is less agreement in the community about ethics or morals? Religions are becoming less important in peoples' lives (there is an uptick among young men and boys, along with a new cult of virginity). And increasingly what I hear even from college students is a diffuse assortment of beliefs, rooted in I do not know what. When uneducated, unfulfilled people become cynical, dismiss all institutions, without any nuance or deeper consideration, I dont find that an encouraging development. ThIs goes hand in hand with the shocking decline in public education in the US. I am doing my best to be both a good person and a fulfilled one, but the latter seems to be a more elusive goal.
You should not act good because you fear damnation or scrutiny from God. You should do good for the sake of being good. You should have manners because you understand that you have a duty to do your part in society to keep order. Imagine the chaos if no one was polite or mannerly. Of course, you can leave your manners at the door when you are at home, because it doesn't affect others. We are well-mannered outside because it affects others. But doing good and being a good person doesn't stop when you come home. Being unmannerly at home doesn't mean you let the Devil take control. The devil only consumes you when you are ill-tempered and let your temptations control you. Bottom line is, do good, not because God is watching, but because it is the right thing to do.
I agree! And to be clear, I don’t believe that there is some entity passing judgement from above, it was simply a perspective of how this idea is used. I think you should uphold the same morals at home as outside. As the stoic doctrine goes, live with consistency.
You need a fuller script than you deal with in this video. We seem to fall into a four-step sequence: guilt, that is we have done something that is consequential, shame, that is we repudiate what we have done as a consequential error, remorse, that we wish to undo that consequential error, and, finally, that we undo it by some form of retribution against one's self or by restitution to those who have suffered in consequence of our act. We gain this from experience. A child is told that it will be punished in some fashion or made to suffer for its actions. The child is expected to undo the act if it can or at least never to repeat it. The child is to take the attitude of the other as its own attitude toward its actions and treat its act as shameful and to be repudiated thereafter, and, in that it has repudiated its actions that have been consequential, it has acquired a conscience, that sense of guilt. The development of the consciousness of our self and its actions is concomitant with the development of a conscience. The child has taken into its order of self-reference an order of judgment of itself. That self-judgment which may never cease or at least repeat itself frames the child's consciousness of itself. The self in that sense becomes a person characterized by an order of judgment. What that judgment precludes as actions, opinions of one's actions, of one's will with regard to one's actions, committed or uncommitted, becomes an ethical order that expresses some actions and represses others whether carried out in reality or only in imagination. It removes them from consciousness at least as far as the child or adult can recognize them as such and grasp that it is acting on them. We have then an order that corresponds to unordered self and its actions, Freud's "Es," an order of which one may be aware or unaware which serves as a kind of superodinate set of rules for action, the "Über-Ich," and what remains as our consciousness of our status as an actor, the "Ich." That order arises out of the connections between self and other. In that the other has been taken into the self, that other is always potentially an observer of our actions and we have no privacy from the complex self that we now have. Our powers of action and our consciousness of them and our conscience about them and the manner in which we do or do not recognize them and the manner in which we feel "innocent" or "guilty, ashamed, remorseful, and hopeful of undoing that which now pains us is private to others perhaps but in some fashion, revealed or concealed to ourselves. Those aphorisms from Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus only serve as pragmatic maxims that leave one to decide far more, persuade ourselves more elaborately to alter our behavior, and to continue to suggest to ourselves courses of action to escape from the pain we may feel. The other that we have made internal to ourselves still continues as an external other. The mechanisms of guilt, shame, remorse, and amends remain in the hands of the other. If you have no privacy from the other your entire power of acting as a self is in some fashion at the discretion of the other. An accuser may always be present. What the Cult does in the notion of "god" is render that in imaginary form but one of which the self may remain convinced. Thou shalt hide nothing from God. The material State attempts to repeat that by framing laws and rules which define the very nature of privacy. In the United States, there is no Constitutional right to privacy stated. It must be inferred from the intent of the authors of the Constitution and others who have a different notion of what rights and duties, obligations and privileges you may have to make judgments about your actions and to execute those actions, at least in that respect, will grant you no more claim to privacy than if the State were Divine. Internally and externally then, your privacy, your judgment, your actions in terms of those judgments may not be deferred to. The same contest occurs internally. You may condemn your own judgment, and not grant yourself any deferential treatment. "I don't do that. I don't believe I'm that sort of person. I made a mistake. I'm sorry." We've come a lot way since the Graeco-Roman thinkers, but the principles in simple form, if not identical, are at least alike. You always have to watch out even if there is no one watching you.
The State is becoming more like the Divine, as technology has allowed it vastly deeper into our lives. This has had profound effects as well. We resent the State's intrusions more than Gods, if we believe in God.
For sure! And it was terrible. Led to nothing but depression and hedonism. Although I believe life doesn’t have any inherent meaning, I am adamant in that we CAN AND NEED TO create meaning for ourselves, otherwise we can’t function properly.
Beyonce is watching all of us.
It's funny because the only time I actually feel closer to God is when I'm alone and can hear my own thoughts.
Jordan Peterson had this analogy from pinocchio where Jiminy Cricket as a name for your conscience is not a mistake. JC = Jesus Christ.
That voice in the back of your head, your conscience, the angel on your shoulder is God. Now, I'm not Christian, but I do believe in God. And this analogy just clicked everything for me. We are never alone, God is always by our side. And instead of stressing you out like you're being watched, this should actually relieve you. Because you'll know that you always have He is with you. You are not alone.
Great video and interesting point of view
i belive that we are always being watched in the sense that we are mathematically being recorded by the law of physics, we just dont have the technology to read atoms firing backwards in reverse.
Can u elaborate on the atoms going aback, what does it have to do with being recorded
@@mariaaaa1128 if you throw a ball, it can hypothetically be predicted how its going to move on the atomic level based off of how it leaves your hands and how it interacts with the environment on the atomic level, if we can predict how it moves forwards , we can also predict the sequence backwards but we dont have supercomputers that can do it yet
If you think about hiding something, you think about fear or maybe you think you are doing something wrong. Either way we should all be authentic stay true to ourselves. Moder society is just arguing in circles. I think you should just look up qaballah and go straight to the truth. You will believe in God and have a true understanding, but if you go into this trying to prove God, you won't see it and if you do this for selfish reasons, you will pay. I am glad you are on the right train of thought more so than most people in the world.
what a great fucking video. I always thought about this idea it nice watching a video about it being explained so well👍🏻👍🏻
Interesting topic man. You know that quote from Dostoevsky from Notes from Underground where he goes like that one also has things that he wouldn't reveal to himself instead of not just to others. Highly recommending this book .
Hawthorne effect
What you describe as "you" is the super ego in Freud, right?. Not everything we dont want anyone to see is shameful, though. Masturbation is not imo sinful or shameful. No one wants to be watched using the toilet. It's about how we look when our bodies are seen and heard, and we're exposed, our bodily functions are exposed.
A darker example might be if we are stressed out and scream at our elderly mother, or at a young child. We might, I hope, find that shameful when we recall it later, in bed that night.
PS: Just wanted to mention, regarding your last video, that Diogenes actually lived well into his 80s, pretty remarkable in ancient times and given his "lifestyle"
Love your videos and look forward to them00pp0pp0pp0ppppppp0lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll0
I’m pretty sure that when I say “you”, I am referring to that “higher” self, the superego in Freud. Yeah, I did think about the things that aren’t necessarily shameful, but that you wouldn’t want to show the world. I didn’t include it in the video, but you gave some good examples. On the topic of masturbation, I’m not sure if I think it’s shameful or not. I think it is shameful to be enslaved to your bodily and emotional impulses, but I guess you could make a conscious decision to go relieve yourself. However, I think I brought up pornography in the video, which I DO think is shameful. And yeah, Diogenes is such a crazy character 😂
What happens when there is less agreement in the community about ethics or morals? Religions are becoming less important in peoples' lives (there is an uptick among young men and boys, along with a new cult of virginity). And increasingly what I hear even from college students is a diffuse assortment of beliefs, rooted in I do not know what. When uneducated, unfulfilled people become cynical, dismiss all institutions, without any nuance or deeper consideration, I dont find that an encouraging development. ThIs goes hand in hand with the shocking decline in public education in the US. I am doing my best to be both a good person and a fulfilled one, but the latter seems to be a more elusive goal.
You should not act good because you fear damnation or scrutiny from God. You should do good for the sake of being good. You should have manners because you understand that you have a duty to do your part in society to keep order. Imagine the chaos if no one was polite or mannerly. Of course, you can leave your manners at the door when you are at home, because it doesn't affect others. We are well-mannered outside because it affects others. But doing good and being a good person doesn't stop when you come home. Being unmannerly at home doesn't mean you let the Devil take control. The devil only consumes you when you are ill-tempered and let your temptations control you. Bottom line is, do good, not because God is watching, but because it is the right thing to do.
I agree! And to be clear, I don’t believe that there is some entity passing judgement from above, it was simply a perspective of how this idea is used. I think you should uphold the same morals at home as outside. As the stoic doctrine goes, live with consistency.
@@NilsLindstrand Completely agree.
You need a fuller script than you deal with in this video. We seem to fall into a four-step sequence: guilt, that is we have done something that is consequential, shame, that is we repudiate what we have done as a consequential error, remorse, that we wish to undo that consequential error, and, finally, that we undo it by some form of retribution against one's self or by restitution to those who have suffered in consequence of our act. We gain this from experience. A child is told that it will be punished in some fashion or made to suffer for its actions. The child is expected to undo the act if it can or at least never to repeat it. The child is to take the attitude of the other as its own attitude toward its actions and treat its act as shameful and to be repudiated thereafter, and, in that it has repudiated its actions that have been consequential, it has acquired a conscience, that sense of guilt. The development of the consciousness of our self and its actions is concomitant with the development of a conscience. The child has taken into its order of self-reference an order of judgment of itself. That self-judgment which may never cease or at least repeat itself frames the child's consciousness of itself. The self in that sense becomes a person characterized by an order of judgment. What that judgment precludes as actions, opinions of one's actions, of one's will with regard to one's actions, committed or uncommitted, becomes an ethical order that expresses some actions and represses others whether carried out in reality or only in imagination. It removes them from consciousness at least as far as the child or adult can recognize them as such and grasp that it is acting on them. We have then an order that corresponds to unordered self and its actions, Freud's "Es," an order of which one may be aware or unaware which serves as a kind of superodinate set of rules for action, the "Über-Ich," and what remains as our consciousness of our status as an actor, the "Ich."
That order arises out of the connections between self and other. In that the other has been taken into the self, that other is always potentially an observer of our actions and we have no privacy from the complex self that we now have. Our powers of action and our consciousness of them and our conscience about them and the manner in which we do or do not recognize them and the manner in which we feel "innocent" or "guilty, ashamed, remorseful, and hopeful of undoing that which now pains us is private to others perhaps but in some fashion, revealed or concealed to ourselves. Those aphorisms from Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus only serve as pragmatic maxims that leave one to decide far more, persuade ourselves more elaborately to alter our behavior, and to continue to suggest to ourselves courses of action to escape from the pain we may feel.
The other that we have made internal to ourselves still continues as an external other. The mechanisms of guilt, shame, remorse, and amends remain in the hands of the other. If you have no privacy from the other your entire power of acting as a self is in some fashion at the discretion of the other. An accuser may always be present. What the Cult does in the notion of "god" is render that in imaginary form but one of which the self may remain convinced. Thou shalt hide nothing from God. The material State attempts to repeat that by framing laws and rules which define the very nature of privacy. In the United States, there is no Constitutional right to privacy stated. It must be inferred from the intent of the authors of the Constitution and others who have a different notion of what rights and duties, obligations and privileges you may have to make judgments about your actions and to execute those actions, at least in that respect, will grant you no more claim to privacy than if the State were Divine. Internally and externally then, your privacy, your judgment, your actions in terms of those judgments may not be deferred to. The same contest occurs internally. You may condemn your own judgment, and not grant yourself any deferential treatment. "I don't do that. I don't believe I'm that sort of person. I made a mistake. I'm sorry."
We've come a lot way since the Graeco-Roman thinkers, but the principles in simple form, if not identical, are at least alike. You always have to watch out even if there is no one watching you.
The State is becoming more like the Divine, as technology has allowed it vastly deeper into our lives. This has had profound effects as well. We resent the State's intrusions more than Gods, if we believe in God.
Takehiko inoue
my favorite
lmao, have you ever dipped into philisophical pessimism or existential/cosmic nihlism?
For sure! And it was terrible. Led to nothing but depression and hedonism. Although I believe life doesn’t have any inherent meaning, I am adamant in that we CAN AND NEED TO create meaning for ourselves, otherwise we can’t function properly.
@@NilsLindstrandAww youre an Existentialist. Ever see the movie "Out of the Past"? (1946)
u stole this off family guy
what?😂
white @benoftheweek