100 Forbidden Philosophical Ideas Part3....

replace conscience a person can become a perfect bureaucrat while helping carry

out horror and never stop to ask why art's warning is clear ethics takes more

than logic it takes reflection judgment and the courage to say no when everyone

else is saying yes evil doesn't always come from cruelty sometimes it comes

from the absence of thought where thinking should be the famous phrase the benality of

evil coined by Arent doesn't downplay the horror of Nazi crimes it actually

makes them even more terrifying because it shows that evil doesn't always come from monsters ideologues or psychopaths

sometimes it comes from ordinary people who simply follow orders and never question the system the benality lies in

the routine of evil in carrying it out without reflection empathy or resistance

ikeman didn't scream hate speeches he didn't even seem to hate Jews he signed

papers scheduled trains quoted Kant without understanding him and in that mechanical obedience he played a key

role in one of history's greatest horrors arent's insight reveals a subtle

danger a society that values performance obedience and

productivity but doesn't teach people how to think ethically bernal evil is

the kind that hides in everyday routines bureaucracy and silence her answer to

this is simple but powerful thinking thinking deeply in a way that breaks the

cycle of pacivity for Art this is the real antidote to evil it's not enough to

be good you have to refuse to be a cog in the machine to H Highaidiger modern technology isn't

just a set of useful tools it's a way of seeing the world he called this view

gestel or in framing a mindset that reduces everything including human

beings to resources something to be used calculated and exploited in this

technological frame nature is no longer something we admire or connect with it

becomes a supply forests become timber rivers become hydroelectric power and

people become human resources technology shifts how we relate to existence itself pushing us

toward a cold utilitarian mindset but Haidiger wasn't anti-technology he didn't say we should

reject it only that we must think deeply about how it shapes us

the real danger isn't the machines but the loss of contemplative thinking the

replacement of being with functioning to dehumanize in this sense is to forget

the mystery of existence to live on autopilot to treat

everything and everyone as a means to an end the solution rediscover a different

way of being in the world less controlling more reflective because only

those who truly think can resist becoming part of the machine fire Abbend shook the

foundations of philosophy of science by claiming that science is not the only legitimate way of knowing the world for

him science is a powerful story but not the only one in fact what we often call

scientific has been shaped by history politics and culture not just logic or

evidence his critique targets scientism the belief that science is pure

objective and superior to all other knowledge systems in books like against method fireend argued that there is no

single scientific method many scientific breakthroughs actually

happened by breaking the rules mixing in art intuition tradition and even

ideology by calling science a narrative he wasn't denying its value he was

challenging its authority and in doing so he made room for marginalized ways of knowing indigenous wisdom folk medicine

Eastern philosophies knowledge he said isn't a pyramid with science at the top it's a

diverse constellation his thinking makes people uncomfortable because it challenges the

hierarchy of knowledge but it also frees us it invites us to think boldly

creatively and with curiosity after all truth doesn't only live in labs it can come from the most

unexpected places thomas shook the foundations of the

scientific ideal by challenging the belief that science is a linear cumulative and purely objective

reflection of reality he introduced the concept of a paradigm a set of beliefs values and

methods that shape what scientists notice and what they ignore

in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Con shows that science moves forward not through steady progress but

through sudden shifts when a paradigm falls into crisis it's replaced and that

change is not just rational but also cultural psychological and even political that means objectivity as

traditionally imagined is an illusion scientists aren't neutral observers they're shaped by history by

expectations by language what counts as a fact depends on the current framework of thinking karna's point doesn't

discredit science it makes it more human scientific knowledge is powerful

but it's also situated interpretive and evolving that's why it should always be

questioned revisited and reimagined there's no timeless truth only a

constant search for better understanding spangler wrote the decline

of the West during a time when modern confidence was crumbling while enlightenment thinkers believed history

moves toward constant improvement Spangler offered a different view civilizations are like living organisms

they're born they grow they peak and eventually they die in his eyes Western

civilization has already passed its prime what's ahead isn't progress but

decline cultural exhaustion mechanical living spiritual erosion technological

advances don't mean moral growth rationality doesn't guarantee wisdom

history he says isn't an upward ladder it's a cycle it's a dark vision but not

hopeless it's a call for humility it reminds us that assuming we've finally

figured it out can blind us to warning signs spangler asks "What if what we

call progress is actually a more polished version of decay?" His view might bother optimists

but it's deeply thoughtprovoking he reminds us that nothing not even science freedom or

democracy lasts forever and maybe real progress starts with recognizing the

limits of our own civilization both Schopenhau and Nze

looked at European culture in their time and saw signs of deep decay for

Schopenhau civilization is a desperate attempt to escape suffering but the more

it develops the more refined and unbearable that suffering becomes nature on the other hand saw a

society weakened by decaying values herd morality denial of life the taming of

instincts modern civilization by moving away from tragedy passion and creative

strength turns people into obedient domesticated beings both philosophers believe

civilization had lost touch with its vital core it chases comfort instead of

greatness it fears pain more than it desires power to them technological

progress hides a growing spiritual emptiness but this isn't just criticism

it's a challenge either we reconnect with our inner creative force or we sink into a world full of consumption and

empty of meaning decline isn't the end it's a sign that something new needs to

emerge but for that to happen we need the courage to face collapse and move

through it nature wasn't afraid to challenge even the most noble feelings to him

compassion isn't always pure altruism often it's a refined form of selfishness

a way to feel morally superior or to boost our ego instead of lifting someone

up it can serve more to make us feel like good people he saw danger in compassion the risk of glorifying

weakness reinforcing victimhood and making suffering the center of life in a culture that puts pity above strength

nature believed we lose our drive to grow to fight to overcome sometimes

those who pity aren't helping they're infantilizing that doesn't mean we should be cruel but we should be

skeptical of emotions that place us in the role of the savior for nature true greatness isn't found in comforting the

one who suffers but in inspiring them to rise above their suffering

he proposes an ethic based on strength not domination but

creation compassion when it's real and active can be powerful but when it's

just moral theater it becomes a mask nature urges us to stop loving people's

pain and start loving their ability to rise from it for both Buddha and Schopenhau though

from different traditions one thing is clear suffering is at the core of human

existence birth loss unfulfilled desire aging death all of it is part of being

alive buddha called it duka the deep discomfort that runs through all conditioned experience the cause

attachment constant craving and the illusion of permanence for him

liberation comes from letting go of desire practicing mindfulness and releasing the ego schopenhau on the

other hand saw life is driven by an endless blind force he called the will we're always wanting something and even

when we get it we want more so life swings between boredom and pain his

solution: deny the will quiet the impulses and find peace in detachment

neither thinker is preaching despair they're offering clarity pain is part of

life the first step to living wisely is to recognize it maybe we can't eliminate

suffering but we can change how we relate to it schopenhau flips the traditional view

of reality on its head for him the world isn't built on reason or material things

it's built on will a blind irrational force that pulses through everything

that lives and this will isn't conscious its drive craving pure life energy what

we perceive the world of appearances is just surface beneath it lies this

relentless will constantly expressing itself in every form of life our bodies

physical expressions of the will our suffering a direct result of our endless

wanting to desire is to suffer it's a dark view but also

profound once we see that the will drives all things Schopenhau believes we

can find wisdom not in chasing desires but in learning to quiet them through

art beauty compassion and even self-denial we can momentarily step

outside the grip of the will so for Schopenhau reality isn't a logical system it's a storm of clashing forces

real peace doesn't come from control or achievement but from surrender the true

hero isn't the one who conquers the world it's the one who learns to stop wanting

it for Thomas Messinger a philosopher of mind and neuroscience consciousness

isn't a divine gift or some kind of immaterial soul it's an evolutionary

byproduct it showed up because it helped our ancestors survive but that doesn't

mean it has some deeper purpose according to Metsinger what we call the self is actually just a mental model

created by the brain a functional construction that combines perception

memory and action consciousness is like a highlevel

simulation and here's the twist there's no real someone behind it all the eye we

think we are it's a useful fiction generated by unconscious processes this

flips the whole idea of a true self upside down and leads to a tough question if there's no solid me then

who's reading this sentence consciousness is real but it doesn't have any independent substance this

might sound unsettling but Messinger sees it as freeing if we understand that

we're self-modeling systems maybe we can rethink how we live suffer or get

attached to things consciousness may be an accident but it can still be a gateway to a more honest clear-minded

way of living most people assume they have free will that they're in control of their

decisions but thinkers like Spininoza and Sam Harris argue that this belief is an

illusion they say our actions are always the result of prior causes: biology

environment and personal history spinosa put it simply "Humans think they're free

because they don't see the chains pulling them." Harris combining philosophy with neuroscience points to

brain research showing that decisions are made before we're even aware of them

free will then is just a feeling not a fact this idea shakes up how we think

about guilt praise and punishment if no one truly chooses who they are how can

we judge others fairly the answer isn't to throw out responsibility it's to redefine it we

need more compassion focus on prevention and healing and a deeper understanding of human

behavior saying free will doesn't exist isn't fatalism it's actually a chance to

live more consciously by recognizing what drives us and making choices that aren't based on blame but on awareness

for George Berkeley to be is to be perceived essays especi that means reality doesn't exist

independently of the mind the material world trees buildings objects only

exists as long as someone is perceiving it without perception there's no

standalone physical substance berkeley isn't saying the world is fake or an illusion he's saying its existence

depends on being perceived and when you're not looking at a tree it doesn't vanish because God the ultimate spirit

is always perceiving everything and holding the world in existence this kind of radical idealism

flips traditional metaphysics on its head instead of solid matter as the base of reality Berkeley puts mental

experience front and center there's no hidden thing behind appearances the

appearances are the thing at first his view sounds strange

but it's powerful it forces us to question the idea of an objective world out there and instead see reality as

something deeply connected to perception berkeley's philosophy even foreshadows

modern debates about virtual reality consciousness and how we construct the world around

us david Hume takes apart one of the oldest and most accepted ideas in

philosophy that everything must have a cause including the universe itself for

him this idea isn't a logical truth it's just a habit of thought we're used to

seeing patterns and assuming every effect must have a cause but that doesn't prove

anything when we try to apply that logic to the universe as a whole we're stepping outside the

rules the concept of cause only makes sense within time change and

relationships between things but the universe as the totality of everything

doesn't fit into that asking what caused the universe might be like asking what's

north of the north pole it's just the wrong kind of question hume also reminds us we never actually see causality we

only see that event A is regularly followed by event B the connection is

assumed not observed by rejecting the idea that the universe needs a cause

Hume undermines many traditional cosmological arguments and pushes us toward philosophical

humility maybe the universe just is and the fact that there's no deeper explanation isn't a flaw it's the

mystery at the heart of existence logical positivism a major

philosophical movement in the 20th century took a hard stance against traditional metaphysics

thinkers like Rudolph Carnap and AJ Ayah argued that statements like God exists

the soul is immortal or being is are neither true nor false they're just

meaningless their view was simple a statement only has meaning if it can be tested through experience or proven

through logic if something can't be measured observed or logically deduced

then it's outside the realm of knowledge metaphysics by that standard is just

noise or as a put it linguistic delirium that doesn't mean deep human questions

don't matter but logical positivism insisted that philosophy should be clear rigorous and grounded in science the

role of a philosopher isn't to speculate about invisible realities but to clarify language and cut through confusion this

critique had a huge impact it pushed metaphysics out of academic philosophy for decades over time it's strict rules

softened and many now agree that not everything that matters can be verified but the core challenge remains

deep thinking requires clarity precision and sometimes the courage to admit when

we just don't know for Freud religion isn't just a belief system it's a psychological

response to human anxiety in the future of an illusion he describes religion as a comforting fantasy born from our fear

of a chaotic and dangerous world in Freud's view God is a projection of the

idealized father powerful just protective and also punishing religious

beliefs give people meaning structure and hope but they do so at the cost of

facing reality religion he says is a collective delusion not in the sense of madness but

in the sense of wishful thinking disguised as truth freud doesn't mock

believers he understands the emotional and social power of faith but he argues

that maturity means facing life without illusions accepting that we don't have

cosmic guarantees science even with its limits is a more honest way to deal with

the unknown for Freud moving beyond religion wouldn't destroy meaning it would make

room for a clearer more grounded humanism based on self-awareness and

solidarity his critique isn't about attacking spirituality but about confronting the tendency to hide from

truth for the sake of comfort kamu and Schopenhau although

very different in style agreed on something essential suffering is part of

life but it doesn't have any deeper meaning it's not punishment it's not a

test it's not a path to something better it just is and trying to justify it can

be a way of denying reality schopenhau saw suffering as the mark of the will a

blind force that drives us and drains us we suffer because we desire and desire

means we're never truly satisfied so suffering is built into life itself

it's not just something that happens by chance kamu on the other hand focused on

the absurd a world that doesn't care where we search for meaning but never get clear answers in his view the real

mistake is trying to explain suffering at all both thinkers believe that maturity doesn't come from pretending

suffering has a purpose but from facing it honestly schopenhau suggests letting

go of the will kimu calls for cleareyed rebellion

suffering doesn't need to mean something in order to be faced and maybe because it has no meaning it challenges us to

create our own not as a solution but as an act of freedom moral relativism challenges the

idea that there's one universal ethics that applies to all people all the time

from this point of view moral values are created by societies shaped by history

culture and language what's right in one place might be wrong in another and no

culture holds the ultimate truth that doesn't mean anything goes relativism

isn't the same as having no morals or excusing everything what it says is that moral judgments only make sense within a

specific cultural context so judging another culture by your own standards can be narrow-minded and often unfair

this view calls for tolerance and deeper listening but it also brings up a real

dilemma how do we criticize things that are clearly violent or oppressive can we say slavery or racism

are objectively wrong relativism forces us to find ethical principles that respect diversity and stand strong

against injustice at its best moral relativism invites us to see ethics as a

conversation between different ways of life not a rulebook handed down from

above and that in itself can be a deeply ethical stance honoring the complexity

of what it means to be human democracy is often praised as the

system of freedom and equality but it also has some serious critics plato in

the Republic saw democracy as the rule of the uninformed majority a system

where people are easily manipulated and the desire for freedom can spiral into

chaos or tyranny disguised as choice centuries later Noam Chosky made

a similar critique from a modern angle in his view liberal democracy is often

run by economic elites controlled media and systems designed to shape public

opinion yes people vote but usually within boundaries already set by those

in power for both thinkers the problem isn't with the idea of democracy it's

with how it plays out in the real world when information is distorted debate is

shallow and inequality means not all voices carry the same weight democracy becomes more of a performance than true

participation the illusion is in mistaking the process for the substance real democracy isn't just voting it's

critical thinking access to truth and equal power to shape

society without that democracy turns into a show a scripted performance

dressed up as freedom henry Bergson makes an important distinction between two kinds of time

clock time which is measurable mechanical and linear and live time

which he calls duration live time is fluid internal emotional

and completely personal we don't experience time as

ticking seconds on a clock we feel it as a flow of consciousness where memories shape the present and hopes stretch into

the future our emotions our moods our expectations they all change how time

feels for Bergson trying to define time using math and science misses the point

science can measure time but it doesn't feel it philosophy if it wants to stay

true to life should focus on how we experience time not how we count it this

idea influenced fields like psychology phenomenology and even modern physics

for Bergson time isn't just part of the universe it's something that pulses

through our soul and to truly understand it we need more intuition than

calculation we love the idea of freedom but for thinkers like Satcha and DSTski

real freedom comes with a heavy price satra says we are radically free no god

to guide us no destiny to lean on we have to choose who we are moment by

moment and that freedom can feel like a burden it brings anxiety because being

free means we can't blame fate tradition or anyone else every choice or refusal

to choose is on us that kind of responsibility can be

overwhelming dosstoyki in the brothers Karamazoff explores the same idea when

given total freedom people often choose security instead they'd rather follow authority believe

in miracles or obey a higher power than face the pain of total

independence true freedom means living without excuses it means taking full

ownership of your life even when it hurts it's not easy but in that weight

lies your power to create who you are emile Durkheim one of the founders of

sociology challenged the idea that crime is just a personal failure or moral flaw

for him crime is a social phenomenon it's shaped by the structure and values of the society we live in every society

defines what counts as a crime based on its own rules and strangely enough crime

can serve a purpose it tests norms sparks change and reveals hidden

tensions in that way crime is a sign that a society is still evolving even

more when a society is unequal violent or unfair it actually produces the crime

it later punishes poverty exclusion lack of opportunity these aren't excuses but

they are real causes durkheim isn't saying we should celebrate crime he's

saying we need to understand it if we just punish without asking why we repeat the cycle crime is a mirror and if we

break the mirror instead of facing what it shows nothing gets better fuko and Kelson had very

different approaches but they agreed on one thing the law isn't born from justice it's a tool of power kelson with

his pure theory of law clearly separates law from morality a law doesn't have to

be just to be valid it just has to fit within a coherent legal system fuko

takes this further he sees law as a way to institutionalize power laws aren't

based on some universal reason they come from historical struggles dominant

interests and systems of control justice in this view isn't what creates the law

it's the story we tell to justify it when people say that law reflects justice Fuko would ask who's justice for

who he points out how the law often reinforces inequality controls bodies

and defines what counts as normal or deviant in that sense the law isn't

neutral it's political to its core seeing law as a product of power isn't

about being cynical it's about being cleareyed it's a way to rethink what justice could mean beyond what's written

in legal codes machaveli with his brutally honest take

on politics breaks the fantasy that virtue alone can change the world for

him virtue isn't about being good it's about being effective strategic and

brave enough to act and without power that virtue is like a sword with no one

to hold it useless in real life achieving justice requires strength

being a good leader isn't enough if you can't enforce decisions a ruler who's virtuous but powerless ends up crushed

by those who are less ethical but more capable and the people suffer for it

machaveli isn't saying that the ends always justify the means he's saying that power isn't automatically dirty

it's necessary without it virtue stays stuck in the world of ideas and never

becomes reality his philosophy shows that ethics and politics don't have to

be enemies but power is the bridge between them the goal isn't to reject

power but to use it wisely with the common good in mind that takes more than

purity it takes practical wisdom for Roland Bath love isn't some

eternal universal feeling it's a cultural creation in his book A Lover's

Discourse he describes love as a kind of language full of signs expectations and

emotional habits we've inherited what we think we naturally

feel has actually been shaped by history we learn how to love from stories from

medieval courtship to modern romantic comedies every era teaches a different

version of love so-called true love is in many ways a performance shaped by

literature media and social scripts this doesn't mean love is fake it means it's

human recognizing that love is a social construct actually makes it more

flexible it opens space for different ways to feel to relate and to care bas

doesn't try to destroy love he wants to free it by revealing the myths behind it

he invites us to love more honestly not by following someone else's script but

by creating our own delo and Guati completely changed how we think about desire for them

desire isn't about lack as Freud and Lan believed it's about production flow and

creative movement and because it's always moving desire never finishes never settles desire desires more desire

it doesn't aim for one final object it seeks processes connections and multiplicities every time we think we

fulfilled a desire it's already shifted somewhere else it works like a machine

not one that consumes but one that creates reality this challenges the idea

that we'll be happy once we finally get what we want desire has no end and it's

not supposed to it's the life force of the unconscious the engine behind

creation politics and art to desire is not to search for completeness it's to

embrace the unfinished nature of being alive and in that acceptance we don't find frustration we find

power fuko breaks down the idea that sexuality is just a natural spontaneous

part of who we are for him sexuality is shaped by discourse institutions systems

of knowledge and social practices that teach us how to feel desire and even see

ourselves sexuality isn't just repressed it's managed categorized and controlled

what we call normal or deviant doesn't come from biology it comes from power

structures that define and regulate bodies medicine religion and law have all played a role in deciding what's

acceptable sex fuko shows that power doesn't only work by saying no it also

creates identities it doesn't just silence us it makes us talk about sex

confess label ourselves the idea of a sexual self is a modern invention shaped

by systems that discipline us from the inside so sexuality is political not

because it should be but because it always has been to think about sexuality

is to examine the forces that govern us deep within in civilization and its

discontents Freud argues that culture only exists because we repress our human impulses to live together in society we

have to hold back our desires especially the sexual and aggressive ones this

repression creates civilization but it also creates discomfort and unease

adorno building on both Marx and Freud pushes this idea even further he sees

culture especially mass culture not as liberation but as a tool of control the

culture industry shapes passive individuals addicted to entertainment that keeps them from thinking

critically both thinkers show that culture has two sides it teaches but it

also oppresses it forms us but it also normalizes

us for culture to truly liberate we need to stop seeing it as harmony and start

seeing it as conflict to recognize culture as repression is the first step toward freeing ourselves not by removing

all rules but by consciously creating new ways to live

in Dialectic of Enlightenment Adorno and Hawheimer take a hard look at modern

reason the very thing that was supposed to free us from superstition and show how it's turned

into a tool of domination instead of liberating reason became a way to

control the world and people what once was critique turned into calculation

philosophy turned into management reason shrank to fit within the limits of efficiency productivity and

administration it stopped asking why and focused only on how no matter the cost

the extreme example Nazism with gas chambers organized like industrial

operations cold calculated rationality without ethics when reason is stripped of

critical thinking and empathy it becomes complicit in horror the Frankfurt School

doesn't want to throw reason away they want to rescue it not just as logic but as critique as art as an ethical force a

reason that asks not only how to do something but why hegel saw art as a powerful way for

the spirit to express itself a way to make universal truths visible but over

time he believed art would no longer be enough philosophy and religion would go

further in expressing human consciousness art then fulfills its purpose and outgrows it that doesn't

mean art dies it just stops being the ultimate way of revealing truth as our awareness matures we turn

from images to pure reflection art becomes aware of its limits and in that self-awareness it negates itself as the

highest form of truth modern art with its constant experimentation and self-questing

reflects this art no longer claims to hold the whole truth it breaks itself

apart opens space for uncertainty its end is actually a transformation art

stays alive but as a broken mirror of truth fuko shows that modern power

doesn't repress it creates controlled freedom instead of saying no it sets

boundaries and lets you choose within them we're free to act but only inside

systems shaped by institutions statistics and norms disciplinary

society doesn't rely on physical prisons it works through everyday routines

habits and expectations we're not controlled by force but by how we've

been trained to behave this kind of freedom is the trickiest trap of all we

think we're autonomous while we just repeat what's expected work consume

behave perform all part of the same game freedom becomes

self-exloitation fuko isn't against freedom he just wants us to question what kind of freedom we really have and

to imagine how we might break free from the invisible cages we mistake for

choices nature was already skeptical truth presented as sacred can actually

be a tool of domination so-called universal truths often hide a will to

power saying this is the truth can be a way of shutting someone up not

understanding them dereda takes it further for him truth is always shaped

by language and language always involves exclusion hierarchy and omission when

truth pretends to be neutral it can quietly oppress the violence of truth isn't just

in lies it's in speaking for others imposing meanings deciding what can or

can't be said what doesn't fit the norm gets labeled as wrong and erased but

recognizing this doesn't mean everything is meaningless it means we open space for other voices other narratives other

truths truth should be questioned not woripped because when truth refuses to

be challenged it's just another form of power with a good reputation if this content spoke to you

in any way give this video a like it helps us reach more people who are also

searching to live with more awareness share it with someone you know needs to hear this today sometimes one sentence

can spark real transformation and of course subscribe to the channel and hit

the bell so you don't miss any new reflections here philosophy isn't just

decoration it's a tool for awakening