100 Forbidden Philosophical Ideas Part 1...

throughout history the ideas that truly changed the world weren't the ones that comforted us they were the ones that

made us uncomfortable it's the unsettling controversial thoughts that tear through the fabric of normality and

expose the hidden structures of reality these are the ideas that shake empires

bring down dogmas and force awareness to wake up saying things like "Truth can be

a form of violence." Or "Freedom is a disguised prison," isn't just philosophical play it's a direct

challenge to common sense inherited morality and established institutions

and because of that it's also an act of courage from Socrates condemned for

corrupting the youth to nature who exposed the false idols of reason and

morality from Hannah Arent who found evil in blind obedience to Fukco who

uncovered the invisible workings of power the history of critical thought is a history of confronting what's already

in place this video brings together 100 philosophical statements that break the

comfortable silence of ready-made truths 100 ideas that don't ask for

permission to exist they arrive as dangerous questions piercing certainties

shaking convictions some shock others hurt many set us free each phrase idea

and thought isn't just theory it's a cracked mirror that forces us to think off track and maybe even against

ourselves because in the end there's only one kind of thought that's truly authentic the one that dares to be

controversial and therefore has the power to spark transformation friedrich ner one of the

most provocative philosophers of the 19th century coined the phrase God is dead to describe a major shift in

western society this statement isn't meant to be taken literally but as a metaphor for the decline of traditional

religious influence on everyday life and moral values with the rise of science and rational thinking religious

explanations for the world lost ground leading to a crisis of meaning and values nature saw this death as both an

opportunity and a challenge without divine guidance individuals are now

responsible for creating their own values and purpose this freedom is empowering but it also means we must

face the responsibility of filling the void left by the absence of a higher moral authority nze warned of the danger

of nihilism where the lack of meaning could lead to hopelessness and inaction for him the answer was the idea of the

ubench or overman someone who rises above conventional morality and creates

their own path this person doesn't cling to absolute truths but embraces life in

all its uncertainty and struggle in this way God is dead becomes a call to action

an invitation for us to take ownership of our lives question societal norms and

find authenticity in our choices and beliefs nature urges us to become the

architects of our own destiny creating meaning that reflects our unique individuality and lived experience

friedrich Nze challenged traditional ideas about morality arguing that moral

values are not universal truths but social constructs shaped by history and

culture he saw morality as a useful illusion a tool developed to maintain

social order and help people live together peacefully according to nature traditional morality often suppresses

natural human instincts labeling them as good or evil based on arbitrary rules

this can lead us to internalize values that don't truly reflect who we are or what we deeply want he proposed a

revaluation of all values encouraging people to critically examine moral norms

and redefine them by doing this we can free ourselves from imposed beliefs and

live according to our own nature and will nature wasn't calling for chaos or

a complete lack of values instead he envisioned a morality that grows from

authenticity and self-empowerment when we recognize morality as a human invention we can take responsibility for

our actions and values leading more meaningful and genuine lives thomas Hobbes a 17th century

English philosopher coined the phrase "Man is a wolf to man," to express his

view of human nature in its roarest form he argued that without a strong central

authority humans would constantly be in conflict with one another driven by self-interest and the desire for power

and resources hobbes described this condition as the state of nature where

no laws or institutions exist to regulate human behavior in such a state

everyone acts solely based on personal needs resulting in a war of all against all life he said would be solitary poor

nasty brutish and short to escape this chaos Hobbes proposed the idea of a

social contract a mutual agreement where people give up some freedom in exchange for safety and order this leads to the

creation of the state an authority capable of enforcing laws and maintaining peace

though Hobbes had a rather grim view of human nature his philosophy highlights the importance of political and social

structures in keeping our worst impulses in check in making civilized life possible kl Marx the German philosopher

and economist famously said "Religion is the opium of the people suggesting that

religion acts like a drug numbing pain and offering comfort to the working class in the face of hardship." He

believed religion was used by the ruling classes to maintain control distracting

people from the social and economic injustices they faced markx argued that religion promises rewards in the

afterlife encouraging people to accept suffering now rather than seek real change in this sense religion can be

seen as a tool for preserving inequality not fighting it however Markx also

recognized that religion is a real expression of human suffering in a world full of inequality and struggle it's

natural for people to turn to faith for meaning and hope so Marx's critique

wasn't just about religion itself it was about how religion functions in society

he believed that by addressing the root causes of suffering people wouldn't need religious consolation anymore and could

face reality more directly and actively when Jeanjac Rouso wrote this line at

the start of the social contract he wasn't just making a bold observation he was throwing down a challenge to Rouso

freedom isn't something granted by the state it's something natural part of

being human and yet everywhere he looked he saw people trapped by authoritarian

governments deep inequalities and institutions that oppressed rather than

liberated rouso believed that in the state of nature humans were free and guided by basic needs and compassion but

as society developed with private property competition and vanity people

became entangled in structures that restricted their freedom these chains

weren't just political but also moral and social rules customs and

expectations that shaped behavior at the cost of authenticity but Russo didn't

think this loss of freedom was inevitable he proposed a new kind of social contract where people give up

total freedom for a shared civil freedom one based on the general will not

domination this contract would prioritize collective good over individual power not oppression by a few

but democratic self-ruule russo's vision was of a

society where politics expressed freedom not control his famous line is still a

call to reflect are we living true to ourselves or have we simply accepted the

invisible chains around us nature doesn't mince words when

discussing the state by calling it the coldest of all monsters he highlights

something deeper than mere bureaucracy or institutional impersonality he points to a machine

that pretends to be the voice of the people but often feeds on individual freedom creativity and human

authenticity to him the modern state presents itself as necessary rational

almost paternal it promises security order and progress but behind this

civilized appearance nature sees a voracious entity that swallows individuals uniqueness in the name of a

supposed collectivity he compares it to a monster not just for rhetorical effect but

because the state in its coldest form demands obedience in exchange for protection a pact that often turns

citizens into mere cogs in the machine nze also criticizes the illusion that

the state is morally neutral for him it appropriates the language of justice and law to legitimize its authority but deep

down it's driven by interests of domination and control this coldness comes precisely from the fact that it

speaks on behalf of everyone but disconnects from each individual's real needs his warning is clear the more

individuals transfer their autonomy to the state the more they distance themselves from themselves nature's

resistance isn't a call to chaos but a defense of inner freedom in a world

dominated by rules and structures he suggests preserving the creative spark

that resides in each human being even if the price is the unease of thinking for

oneself when Simone de Boboir asserts that existence precedes essence she's

deconstructing centuries of thought that upheld a fixed idea that there's a natural eternal and immutable essence to

being human contrary to this Devoir proposes a new way of thinking about the

subject we aren't something predetermined we become this view breaks with the metaphysical tradition that

separated body and soul nature and culture for her the body is the starting

point from which experiences unfold and identities are formed it's in the flesh

in social and historical relationships that being is constituted saying that existence comes

before essence means there's no biological destiny that defines what a person is what defines someone are their

choices actions and experiences essence in this sense isn't

given it's constructed over time this assertion is deeply

existentialist we are freedom in action even in the face of contexts that try to

imprison us the impact of this idea goes far beyond philosophy it has influenced

social movements gender debates and the struggle for equality dovvoir invites each person to

break with narratives that impose limits the body can be the starting point but

not the prison the human being for her is a project a possibility a becoming

thus instead of accepting a predefined role we are called to create ourselves

and this is both a burden and a freedom because being free means having no excuses not to

be when Gilbert Riyle states that the soul does not exist he's not denying the

existence of the mind or emotions what he challenges is a deeply

rooted idea in philosophical tradition that the human being is composed of two

distinct elements body and soul he calls this the myth of the ghost in the

machine according to Riyle this dualistic conception mainly inherited

from Deart creates a confusion that there's a separate self inhabiting the

body and commanding its actions for him this image is misleading the mind isn't

a hidden immaterial substance concealed within the flesh thinking deciding

remembering feeling all these are ways of acting forms of behavior that

manifest in the world not mysterious phenomena occurring in some invisible

interior the mind for rile isn't something we have but something we do

when someone solves a problem or expresses affection they're not revealing an internal ghost but acting

in an observable manner this approach breaks with a long metaphysical tradition moving toward a more practical

linguistic almost behavioral philosophy the central point is that

seeking the soul as an isolated entity is a category mistake like trying to

find the number three inside an apple the mind isn't a thing among other things it's a way of being in the world

and this shift in perspective invites us to view humans not as hidden enigmas but as a set of meaningful actions instead

of seeking what we are inside perhaps we should pay more attention to what we do there perhaps lies what we truly

are when Arthur Schopenhau said the world is a representation he meant that

what we experience as reality is actually shaped by our minds we don't

see the world exactly as it is we see it through a filter everything we touch

hear see or feel is processed and interpreted by our brains so in a way

we're not living in the world itself but in our version of it this idea was inspired by Emanuel

Kant but Schopenhau took it further he believed that behind everything we

perceive behind the colors shapes and sounds there is something deeper

something we can't fully grasp the will according to him the will is a blind

driving force at the core of all existence it's what pushes us to act to

want to strive and yes often to suffer so life in his view has two sides

the first is the world as we experience it our personal representation of reality the second is the will this

unconscious energy that fuels all life but also creates endless desire and

dissatisfaction schopenhau's view can feel a bit dark he believed that much of

human suffering comes from this constant craving the will that never lets us rest

but he also believed that there were moments when we could rise above it through art especially music or through

deep contemplation we might step out of that cycle for a little while and find peace in short Schopenhau reminds us

reality isn't just out there it's shaped from within the way we see the world

says as much about us as it does about the world itself and by understanding this we might learn to suffer a little

less and live a little more consciously michelle Fuko challenged one

of the most comfortable assumptions in western thought that truth is something fixed objective and eternal

for Fuko truth isn't discovered it's created and it's created through

language power and history when he says that truth is a construct of language

he's saying that what we call truth in any society depends on how we talk about it on the words we use the rules we

follow and the institutions that back certain stories while silencing others in other words truth isn't just about

facts it's about who gets to define them fuko argued that every historical

period has its own regimes of truth ways of thinking that become dominant not

because they're more accurate but because they've been legitimized by authorities like science law religion or

the media language in this sense isn't neutral it shapes what we see what we

think is possible and what we even notice this idea might sound

relativistic at first but Fuko wasn't saying that all claims are equally valid

what he was doing was calling us to be more critical to ask who benefits from

this version of the truth who gets excluded what voices are being ignored

he believed that by understanding how truth is produced not just accepted we

can become more aware of the power dynamics in our society that awareness in turn gives us the tools to resist

manipulation and creates space for alternative perspectives to be heard in

the end Fuko's message is a call to responsibility if truth isn't fixed if

it's shaped by language and power then we all play a role in shaping the world we live in through what we say what we

believe and what we choose to question michelle Fuko breaks away from the idea

that moral values come from pure reason or eternal principles for him what a society sees

as moral is deeply connected to the power structures that shape it morality

doesn't come from the human heart or some higher ethics it emerges from how

power operates in our language our institutions and even our bodies instead

of seeing power as something centralized like a king or government authority Fuko

shows that power seeps into everyday life it's in the doctor's office the classroom the prison the rules we follow

and even the words we use to describe things because of this what counts as

good or bad shifts depending on who's in control what's praised in one culture

might be punished in another morality then isn't fixed it's flexible and often

it serves to keep some groups in charge while silencing or excluding others fuko

isn't trying to say what's right or wrong he's showing how those ideas are built that doesn't mean everything is

equally valid but it does mean we should question how moral rules are made who

benefits who loses instead of blindly accepting what we're told is good Fuko wants us to ask

who's really pulling the strings in the opening of the Communist Manifesto Markx and Engles deliver a

powerful and poetic line all that is solid melts into air they weren't just

describing a feeling of instability they were capturing the restless everchanging nature of capitalism nothing stays the

same no tradition is sacred everything is absorbed reshaped and discarded under

capitalism old values family ties and religious beliefs lose their weight what

really matters becomes profit growth and innovation human relationships get

replaced by contracts numbers and transactions the past fades and the future always feels uncertain like we're

building our lives on shifting sand this constant change creates amazing

technology yes but also deep inequality modern life promises endless

possibilities but often delivers anxiety and disconnection what used to feel

solid becomes temporary even personal identity can feel like it's slipping

away but Marks and Engles weren't just being pessimistic they also saw this chaos as a chance if everything can be

broken down then everything can also be rebuilt that's the spark of revolution

realizing that nothing is permanent means we can create something better a world where people matter more than

profits a world that puts humans not money at the center of life for Markx history isn't just a

timeline of kings wars and inventions it's a story of conflict mainly between

those who have power and those who don't between the people who own the means of production and those who only have their

labor to offer this changes how we look at the past markx believed that economic

systems shape everything our governments our values even our morals for example

the shift from feudalism to capitalism wasn't just about technology or politics

it was about changing who held power and how society was structured to Markx conflict isn't a

mistake it's the engine that drives history forward landowners versus

peasants bosses versus workers the ruling class versus the working class

every major shift in history he said came from these deep social tensions

finally reaching a breaking point this way of thinking forces us to question inequality poverty privilege and

exploitation aren't just how things are they're the result of specific systems

and choices and because they're humanmade they can be changed class struggle isn't just a

theory it's a call to action markx believed that once people understand the

forces shaping their lives they can organize fight back and build something better history isn't just something we

study it's something we make barak Spininoza a 17th century

philosopher shook the foundations of how we think about freedom he claimed that

free will the idea that we can choose freely independently of any outside

influence is an illusion according to Spininoza people believe they're free simply because they