A clip from the 1961 program with Hazel Barnes on Existentialism called The Self-Encounter, which can be found here: • Self-Encounter: A Stud... #philosophy #existentialism #sartre #camus
Eventually Atheism will have to confront the fact that it has to provide a leadership role. To prove beyond doubt that any purpose for human life is already here and what it requires of us is a solid, multi-categorical argument. Beginning with the 'expectations' contained within our genome (nearly every new life becomes a fully-enabled alpha) all the way to expecting some bright/genius contribution from each of those fully switched on minds; and along the way we contribute capably, willingly and sociably (also within the genome) such that the end of life is chosen - "I have nothing more to offer, clap me out boys, it has been great, fertiliser here I come." Or we go with the lifetime of pain and suffering which is not within the genome - apart from the unexpected process of emerging from child to adult - being born is after all a huge imposition and growing to our potential requires sacrifice (10,000 hour rule, mommy and daddy like other things, people necessarily judge our progress, etc.) *Fundamental Q: Is intelligence the Cosmos trying to make sense of itself?* A quaintly anthropomorphic question but we like using metaphors because they are proof of concept. The question also ties us to our roots.
@@boiwaif The presence of a Cosmos is proof that that it didn't need a creator. Because the state of 'nothing', a language compromise term, could exist. Even a Unicorn could be somewhere, just not Earth (environmental needs etc.). God can have the Holosphere if he still insists on being placated. The Atheist challenge: _"Q: Is intelligence the universe _*_trying_*_ to make sense of itself?"_ A quaintly anthropomorphic question but if it is also a ridiculous question there is no harm in trying to answer it. Nobody gets out alive after all.
It’s not that I care about establishing a creator, but your argument against one is hollow. And the answer to your second question is, of course, no. Unless you’re willing to allow for that creator. You’ve got a flickering God problem.
@@drivelikej9962 I have provided no argument that dismisses a 'creator' apart from a 'creative spirit' contained within the rules, absolutes and limits that turn energy into atoms, compounds, etc. There can be no such argument to an open mind. It could one day prove to be the case. However any God who can't communicate with the simplest clarity with his own 'creation' is suspect, it could be one of those lying, cheating humans after all. Guess.
@@peterclark6290 Peter, I fear I cannot say which is shakier, your theology or your physics. But okay, I get it: you're an atheist with a weakness for purple prose. The universe is a complicated place etc. etc.
The excerpt from Sartre reminds of a pulling reality away from the satz der grund, but rather than doing it in an objective sense where nothing is everything, it is done from the view of the subject where everything instead becomes nothing and meaningless, disgusting.
This is whole video?anything else? I love that! Thank you so much, I appreciate!
I was really into this stuff 1969-1974. What strange times!
Thank you very much for sharing! Appreciate this Channel and information so much!!
Thanks for posting this one! I have been waiting for it 😎
this one is fantastic, even better after reading the plague.
Sartre is flawless in that description.
Enjoyed this, thanks
The first Vulcan to visit Earth.
Yes
wow ❤🔥
This woman is intense!!!!
Hazel was hot in her own odd way. :)
For some smart is incredibly shot🔥🔥🔥
💗💗💗
Find the full program on my channel :)
who is she?
Hazel barnes
4:09 In 200 years, historians will be like: “We don't get it, but it must have made sense to people at the time...”
And then they'll remember that it took place in the context of a discussion about the absurd.
Eventually Atheism will have to confront the fact that it has to provide a leadership role. To prove beyond doubt that any purpose for human life is already here and what it requires of us is a solid, multi-categorical argument. Beginning with the 'expectations' contained within our genome (nearly every new life becomes a fully-enabled alpha) all the way to expecting some bright/genius contribution from each of those fully switched on minds; and along the way we contribute capably, willingly and sociably (also within the genome) such that the end of life is chosen - "I have nothing more to offer, clap me out boys, it has been great, fertiliser here I come." Or we go with the lifetime of pain and suffering which is not within the genome - apart from the unexpected process of emerging from child to adult - being born is after all a huge imposition and growing to our potential requires sacrifice (10,000 hour rule, mommy and daddy like other things, people necessarily judge our progress, etc.)
*Fundamental Q: Is intelligence the Cosmos trying to make sense of itself?* A quaintly anthropomorphic question but we like using metaphors because they are proof of concept. The question also ties us to our roots.
Still doesn't answer why.
@@boiwaif The presence of a Cosmos is proof that that it didn't need a creator. Because the state of 'nothing', a language compromise term, could exist. Even a Unicorn could be somewhere, just not Earth (environmental needs etc.).
God can have the Holosphere if he still insists on being placated.
The Atheist challenge:
_"Q: Is intelligence the universe _*_trying_*_ to make sense of itself?"_
A quaintly anthropomorphic question but if it is also a ridiculous question there is no harm in trying to answer it. Nobody gets out alive after all.
It’s not that I care about establishing a creator, but your argument against one is hollow. And the answer to your second question is, of course, no. Unless you’re willing to allow for that creator. You’ve got a flickering God problem.
@@drivelikej9962 I have provided no argument that dismisses a 'creator' apart from a 'creative spirit' contained within the rules, absolutes and limits that turn energy into atoms, compounds, etc. There can be no such argument to an open mind. It could one day prove to be the case.
However any God who can't communicate with the simplest clarity with his own 'creation' is suspect, it could be one of those lying, cheating humans after all. Guess.
@@peterclark6290 Peter, I fear I cannot say which is shakier, your theology or your physics. But okay, I get it: you're an atheist with a weakness for purple prose. The universe is a complicated place etc. etc.
Any indian here??
The excerpt from Sartre reminds of a pulling reality away from the satz der grund, but rather than doing it in an objective sense where nothing is everything, it is done from the view of the subject where everything instead becomes nothing and meaningless, disgusting.
It was enjoyable until the backing dancer started 🙄
Haha, that was the best part!
I am the Lord of the Dance said he….Faultless choreography 😂