+upayjay1 Not really. This is a very, very dumbed down and oversimplified version of what Heidegger meant. But pop-culture has taken this version of the idea and ran with it for decades now. Which I am sure would have Heidegger spinning in his grave.
Yep. Heidegger was talking about true relation. He was trying to explain the nature of consciousness itself, how we interact with what comes over and against us. In the formulation that the average person would take from it, is that one should form some sort of egotism, and yes, Heidegger would certainly be rolling in his grave.
You know what I hate? People that don't see the value in philosophy as a school. Like, people revere majors such as engineering, chemistry, physics, mathematics, computer science, etc., and yet take a shit on philosophy majors, as if there is no good reason to invest one's time and money toward a better understanding of one's self, the human species, and existence itself. And for the record, I am a physics major, but I have a huge amount of respect for philosophers, both throughout history and in modern time. We would be lost without them.
+The Final Resistance I agree but how would you hire a philosophy major? I'm imagining a job ad saying, "need one philosopher for the purposes of enrichment of the mind by sitting down on my comfy new sofa and thinking, while writing about what you thought." I'm just not sure how we're supposed to make anything of a philosopher but to make them an author
+Halogen Productions In my country, philosophers travel all over the place, to give ethical advice and think instead of the client. Sounds weird I know, but people aren't brilliant here.
+Marvelous Quasar Pork Man Arround here philosophers travel giving speeches for college students and businessman, plus they occasionally speak on news channels. All that between being an author. Is it something like that you are talking about?
+The Final Resistance As a math major, I see the value in Philosophers. I think we are just bounded by the idea that Philosophers do not really have stable jobs such that a math or biology major may become an engineer or a doctor, or how an art major can become a freelance designer. Philosophers naturally don't want to capitalize on their thoughts, because if they did, they'd be corrupted by money instead of thinking beyond the human experience.
i think i live this way now. i view everyone as being on a treadmill, being effected by everthing around them, how others treat them etc. getting emotional from the daily grind. not being themselves, being how others say they are. i live more seperate from myself and others, i see the big picture, i step back and view everything, like an out of body experience at all times. i dont let others shape me, i dont understand why people let others control them or be effected emotionally or shape their image of self. see your authentic self not how others view you, step back and see you and be your own being. choose not to be effected or controlled by others and live a life you choose. i feel like nothing really matters except existing how you choose, why get wound up with small things, just exist authentically and not the false self others say you are or view you as.
Lol I had this attitude even beafore i realised it exists x3. Also FFS Everyone is authentic There was no being build from exacly same atoms with exacly same history ;v
The thing is that you don't really define yourself entirely, Heidegger admits that you are always bounded to and by "others" to some extent, you can't explain Heidegger's philosophy in 3 and a half minutes, and I don't even think you can fully explain Heidegger's philosophy in English, nor in Spanish (which is my native language), you should have at least some basic knowledge on German, but this video should guide you into reading him someday, discovering things thru heideggerian philosophy is quite a ride.
Its not working like that, there's a reason why Heidegger found a method of destruction before derrida deconstruction. We destruct and founding our way out of metaphysical error since Plato.
I consciously refuse to let Heidegger construct how I can live an authentic life. When I die, I will only exist as others remember. Furthermore I am the sum of my surrounding environment. Trying to be an authentic person in this second doesn't change that this video gave me someone else's version on how I'm supposed to be 'authentic' and that when I die this 'authenticity' will cease completely.
Marvin Etruw The people see what they want to see. They saw “I’m going to die eventually anyway + Don’t tell me what I to do”. Sadly, they missed lots of other aspects, like “I will live my LONG life how I see fit, regardless of your opinions (be they good or bad)”
1:18 - 1:20 who gets coffee and waffles at a sushi bar? haha a wonderful episode of 8 bit philosophy, it has really helped me out with me figuring out my own sense of self. Thanks Wisecrack.
Honestly there is no better channel than this one. The way you combine education, entertainment and technology is fantastic. So happy you combined these different series into one brilliant hub of knowledge.
For some reason whenever I see something with the message that you should live like *you* want to live, instead of how other people want you to, it makes me really happy. I'm still trying to set myself on the track of doing that
Heidegger basically explained "Carpe Diem" (or a sort of YOLO for the uninformed) in a way that makes us independent from social acceptance. But one can't live without depending on another, so is Heidegger's theory flawed? I think not, as Heidegger's philosophy does not indicate TOTAL isolation from society. It simply suggest that independence can be valuable, as you don't depend on public opinion for your daily choices or rather "routine". In much simpler terms, you don't really care what people think about you whether good or bad. Thought I clarify for some people since some were questioning how this make sense and how it appliea to us. Thank you Wisecrack for a great video and more food for thought :)
I've tried mushrooms back in 2015, which kinda went great during the night itself but in the aftermath made me aware of the concept described here, my death being my own, it was kind of hard to describe what changed my perspective to others because I never believed in the afterlife or anything, so there was no part of my reality shattered and yet it felt like there was somehow, it caused me some serious anxiety and in some ways I isolated myself doing a lot of me things like hobbies and binche watching stuff, and I gave a constantly pannicked and stressed impressions at work, my employer at some point just couldn't have me working like that anymore, but two jobs later I've now found a place where I'm seriously feeling like besides earning my salary I also spend my time doing something meaningfull and I've gotten in a good mental state because of that again, this video still helps putting that time into perspective a bit better I'm not trying to sell a cliché like 'say no to drugs' but if you're as insecure as me at that time (even lying to my fucking parents about having had sex) you might want to be carefull with them
Since the brain is essentially a sponge that absorbs stimuli which forms your personality, isn't being completely independent of everyone theoretically impossible?
See the existentialist attitude is to believe otherwise. This is of course naive to do since we are, without a doubt, creatures living in a mechanical world. For existentialists like Kierkegaard this isn't a problem because man is a free being whose freedom stems from the self that is ultimately spirit and not mechanical. For the others its a matter of will and that's good enough I suppose to exert some belief to the contrary and further a subjective reality. To be brief, as a human being you are uniquely a creature with the ability to somehow suspend the mechanical and live an 'authentic' life.
+JandJandJandJandJ uh, the human being is social by nature. I mean, I only am myself in relation to another person so, how could you ever be completely independent if the very definition of human being is to be social. You would simply cease to be human. Take the ;Tarzan in the jungle for example .
+JandJandJandJandJ See, whether that knowledge exists in a vacuum or as a result of society's influence on you, it still belongs to you absolutely, and no one can revoke or refute that.
Praying to GOD for a more peaceful future makes me happy. Thanking God for blessing my family for 3 things I really need in life, which are Food, Shelter, and health. Everything else is a want.
I tired reading the introduction of Being and Time the other day and my god that book is complex with it's abstract wording and such, but it is well worth it to march on through the book for the search of knowledge. Great video!
After laying a groundwork of important thinkers' profiles, it would be nice to see some episodes that put philosophers with critical disagreements with each other in a head to head point/counterpoint match.
i keep trying, being real and true to yourself is easy to say, but not so hard to do, especially in a world built upon caring what others think or you'll be alienated and worse. one slip up on social media and you can even get threats, that's scary, and not a great thought when trying to remain positive and determined
just wandering the authentic dasein requires not only detachment but a great dose of courage, that´s the price to pay to get it real. It´s like taking the "red pill"
The fallen Dasein does not realize his fallen-ness when witnessing objects ready-to-hand become present-at-hand, (Hammer Example) rather due to something Heidegger names, the call of conscience. Dasein deals with 'guilt', not of actions, rather one of not owning up, taking responsibility of what is ownmost, this is built into the existential structure of Dasein's being. This guilt/ call of conscience (as anxiety did) exposes Dasein to his own being as finite. And Dasein as 'truth'/ unfolding/ disclosing. Understanding this call of conscience/ guilt represents a "conversion" in Dasein (Religious language deliberately used, reference Kierkegaard) what allows him to take a particular stance towards death; anticipatory resoluteness. This particular mode of being toward death of anticipatory resolute disclosedness is what Heidegger calls an authentic mode of being.
You guys should do Stirner next. I find his look at individuality very interesting, and laugh when people try to call objectivism egoist, when it clearly isn't. Your video could clear some misconceptions
Being In 8 Bit and Stuff. Is it a difficult book? Being and Time, Being-One-Self = Who is something I point out to Whovians a lot as the joke of Dr Who, Doctor of Being on Self. Suggest that book as manual to the originating philosophy of the character that seems lost now. Heidegger's Deism and Maslow's Self Actualization are similar but there is something more enjoyable about reading Being and Time.
we are all being towards negation. the negation of everything we are is inescapable. if we take this idea seriously, we are then free to become who we are and who we are capable of being.
Dasein may live in ambiguity between being and non-being and its own temporal being-towards-death but focusing on presencing (Ereignis) as the way being is letting-be presence is life as it is. Avoid utility, reason, and technology's view of existence for existence as it unconceals itself. (See Heidegger: On Time and Being)
So basically he's describing self-awareness/sentience? I wonder what he'd consider the concept of "being in the zone" as. Like when people reach a state of consciousness, during an activity, where there is basically no thought, just reaction. Although, he covered that probably with the blacksmith's hammer, it has become part of his body basically, which all comes from a lengthy amount of training. One of society's roles in our lives, is to conform us, to its rules, to its collected wisdom, train us basically. So I guess his point is being able to step away from the mindlessness, of the just doing. I bet a lot of early psychology concepts came from this book, cause it seems to lead there in a hurry.
This is a concept that is so similar to his expounding of being ready-to-hand, rather than being present-at-hand. So similar, I think, that it makes no difference. When dasein takes part in being-in-the-world with a thing in such a way that it is ready-to-hand, then the reflection and analysis of the Cartesian ego (that is carried through philosophy, the self as thinking and reflecting) dissolves into action. He discusses this from the get go of Being and Time as he must distinguish Dasein's analytic from the typical analytic of philosophy's history. Our analysis and reflection on the world arises with scientific practice or when things that were ready-to-hand break down (as the video said). According to Heidegger, must of Dasein's being is "in-the-zone" and not immediately reflected on. You use the doorknob to open the door, but you don't have to reflect on the nature of doors and doorknobs as you twist it. You hammer the nail in, without reflecting on the make up of the hammer and it's weight, length, etc. This is Dasein's everyday, originary being-in-the-world (a human being that copes and acts and interacts within a context and is made to reflect at times, though not at all times). Hubert Dreyfus has some lectures posted for free as a podcast on iTunes University that may make all of this even clearer. He is a great American Heidegger scholar.
Keifer May Interesting. I think I see this clearer now. I was trying to put it in an evolutionary context, such as you are A, then become B. But the door knob example, when you first learn to use a door knob, you probably consider how it works, turn the knob, the bolt slides over, door can now open. Not so long after this, you'll just twist the knob, with barely a thought, until it breaks. Much like an athlete that trains many hours a day, in the moment, where to throw the ball, requires no analysis, until there is an error, and then second guessing of that first instinct. Also watching the video again, I see its much more than that, its about owning yourself, taking control, good stuff. Thanks for pointing out the iTunes University, I'll check it out.
Exactly! I'm glad that helped. Reading it again, it was sort of obscure. Heidegger is difficult, but worth studying. iTunes University is awesome! Cheers, Jason.
I feel that Holden Caulfield is somewhere in the middle of this debate, constantly aware of the non-authenticity or "phoniness" of life yet unable to authenticate his own sense of being.
I'm not sure if I accept Camus' conclusion. Don't see myself ever being happy pushing the rock up the mountain, no matter how many times I tell myself to embrace it. Thanks tho.
+Craig Candor It is what it is. You are an aspect of all things, which are aspects in themselves of the all-things that you are. You are whatever you choose, and reality manifests itself however you perceive it to. You are in control.
Wow, seven months and no responses? That's fucked up. Alright. Deconstruction is a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language that emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression. Basically, in order to form an understanding of a concept from multiple angles and perspectives, you have to break it down, observe each piece on its own, and then see how they fit together. Now, I have deconstructed deconstruction. Gee, thanks... It's philoso-ception.
Maybe there should be trophies or achievements here in the 8 Bit community like console games - maybe for viewing, or the best and/or most comments by subscribers! Not a comment on Heidegger I know, but just popped into my head. Carry on Sprites!
I love this series, can't wait for you to tackle Camus. I'm wondering though is there a team of people behind all of the wisecrack videos? One person? Or one person behind each series?
I for some reson always think about who I am in the world and when I do something how it effects it.For example misspelling could agitate some one hint hint or the could have noticed this after reading or saw this part first
Don't forget, the question of metaphysics itself is invalid from the start because it conceived of itself as separate from Being, opposed to being as being
Actually, many animals understand death. Like vultures waiting for you to die before they eat remains. Some animals wait by dying animals, to apparently ease their pain through death... They are aware of their existence as individuals, but for almost all other species except us, and maybe the animals we have taken under our safety, see it makes sense to thrive in some tight community - like ant colonies, herds etc. Although I admit some lack that understanding of their own existence maybe, but it is like us through childhood we lack sentience. A baby could crawl into a road, and be ran over. But with age and understanding, we can tell that is not such a good idea. Similarly a puppy could wander into the road, and some grown dogs still do. But most understand danger, and actively avoid it to preserve themselves.
Is anyone going to bring up how in spite of how Heidegger was important to post-Neizchtean philosophy is finally detecting how for +2000 years Western philosophy had been obsessed with "what is being?" instead of "what is (the process of) becoming?" (something more expanded on in "Eastern" philosophy)--it's important to know *how to read him politically* since he let his stuff be used for Nazism,which is something he didn't really publicly apologize for expressing regret once privately. -_- aaannnndd I hope for articulate discourse on this instead of "reductio ad Hitlerum" which is something which afaik didn't even happen in the Episode 2:the Nietzche vid.
Why do you guys keep numbering these? It's kind of pointless really. Noone in a few months will be saying to themselves. "AH! It's so aggravating! want to find my favorite episode of 8 bit philosophy but all I can remember about it is which order it came in! Why can't these be numbered?!" if you didn't number it. A minor complaint I know.
Great stuff. I think it may be important to note that Heidegger, like many philosophers, never really completed his philosophy and often challenged assertions from his seminal early works later in life. Authenticity as presented here is much more attractive to a young person who hasn't built a life than to an adult who has. The balance between a purely authentic but isolated life and choosing to conform becomes more important.
Seeing how my original comment is irrelevant to this reply string, I'll just remove it. :P Go down and see a pretty damn long and thoughtful conversation about existence and all that jazz. It just goes straight over my head that's for sure! XD
The soul always comes to mind whenever I think of this dilemma but I don't believe in souls so it makes it a lot easier for me to digest. When pondering the existence of an intangible soul and its connection with your physical form - is there any room for a soul when your brain does pretty much everything (this is without getting into us having essentially an extra brain in our gut)? If something happens to your brain, like a defect or disease, are you truly the same person? If the person suddenly can't count, or remember faces, or see colours, or form sentences, why would your soul be able to? The fact that brain damage changes your personality makes it easy for me to think of death as somewhat permanent. On the other hand if everything keeps changing and the cells in our bodies replace themselves constantly, what keeps us being us? Having the idea of self even though the self literally isn't itself anymore? Our perception of the self may be in the connection between neurons, the information that travels between them. I'm not a scientist with a degree in brain chemistry or whatever, so this might just be hogwash. So the idea of the self stays intact between the cells, so if one gets replaced the others "fill it in" on the whole "self thing". Maybe? I don't think death is a complete end - only an end to that perceived existence, not existence itself for any of the parts that make up that person since nothing just disappears (something something thermodynamics). But I have a hard time seeing the self continue as itself after brain death, especially when ones personality deteriorates at the same rate as the brain. ------------------------------------ Don't know why I chose your comment to latch on to but I just wanted to share my thoughts. These are my thoughts on the whole atheism/theism debacle you touched on and its relation to philosophy. By the way I'm an atheist if it wasn't apparent yet. This is about philosophy not religion and philosophy is about discussing ideas. Basing thoughts about life, the universe and everything on an ancient text and trying to shoe-horn ideas to fit with that is pretty intellectually dishonest when we're all trying to find a somewhat suitable answer to a dilemma. Having religion being a constant "Nope, you can't do that" to new ideas stifles discussion and changes the talking points from being about the topic at hand to instead being about the particular religion in question and its (almost always bullshit) answer to the dilemma. I can see how this last paragraph might be seen as a giant "shut up with your religious nonsense" editorial piece but I just love discussing ideas, proper ideas, instead of getting nonsensical proofs about Jesus' virgin birth, Mohammed's unicorn ride to heaven or Vishnu's millions of avatars making sense - all things that can be interesting to talk about but sadly don't make a lot of sense / have no proper relation to the topic at hand. That discussion belongs in a theological debate, not in a philosophical one.
Mark Dano thanks man. It's nice to have a forum where you can actually put your thoughts down instead of it just lingering in your head. In a comment section for a video about being authentic I guess it makes sense that it would give me the courage to actually be authentic to myself. And even though I'm supposed to be authentic and not base my emotional state on others' thoughts about me, I still feel a lot better after your comment :) thank you. Being social creatures I guess we can never completely shake the influence other people have on our lives, however small it may be.
Nicho another thing i think lends credence to the idea of a soul, of life being more than just where it stops at death is the measurable effect someone has on the world and those around them, even after they're gone. i can go watch videos that have dead people in them, hear their voices, see them, they can still change my thoughts and opinions, hell, a lot of people in this series are long dead and they're still effecting the world,...how do you quantify that? i really like the idea presented in inception about the power of an idea, a concept that we can't very well define, not a fact, but a thought, that passes to others, a spoken word virus of the mind that can extend almost infinitely, as long as there's new people to pass the idea on, so how can i believe my existence will end with my death, when i see proof all around that others who have died continue to effect the world and the people in it?
RDeathmark About affecting other people after your death - I do consider it your actions (or "works") that affect people not "you" as a being. You may have been the actor at some point but afterwards you're not guiding them consciously. Say a man cuts a path through a forest. Long after his passing, people still walk on that road. But do you take that as him guiding them after his death, affecting them as it were? Or is it merely that his works affect people because they "outlive" him? I say to this quandary that there are people, and there are the works of people. In this case it is the works of people that affect other people long after their passing, not an immaterial soul reminding you of them after their death. And even then - we do have brains for a reason. They are pretty much organic computers that can store information and utilize it. That's why you can be affected by things. Be it from a living or dead person doesn't matter - it is data in the purest sense of the word. Also, consider this. The measurable effect of someone is directly proportional to how much knowledge people have of the person and his works. If you live alone in a forest in Siberia and you have not shared a single moment with another human being (for the sake of argument), would you not have absolutely no effect on anyone, ever? Maybe your bones would be discovered centuries later, but that's only if you don't decompose naturally. My point being, if no one knows you exist/existed, no one can be affected by you. So it has nothing to do with souls but all to do with memory. Your actions matter if you want to be remembered. Not what you think. Unless we can at some point store memories to be shared with others directly, you have to speak out if you want your authentic self being remembered. Or else, to invoke Plato's idea of the Allegory of the Cave, they will merely remember your shadow. Feel free to add anything more if you want, I'll be glad to discuss the idea of a soul further for the sake of a friendly discussion :)
I think, therefore something exists (ether me or something that simulates/represents me). Thus, I think, therefore *at least 1 thing* exists. However, with just 1 thing in the universe, movement nor change would be possible; there would be no way to distinguish any type of variety, there would be nothing else than simply *it* ; in order to have an information code that can represent things other than itself, through combination, the code must have at least 2 variants - the concept of Boolean data, or a binary system. Thus, something else must exist! We have the *thing* , and the *something else* . So, remaking that first statement: *I think, thus something exists and at least something else also exists.*
Wait a second.... This voice is bloody familiar... It's like the computer's voice from Courage(the cowardly dog show)? By the way... What do you mean that "dead" is = "not being"? "Not being" can also mean "not borned"; in both cases it's = "not exist" (just that in the next one you are "anymore" if you know what I mean)...
+drgdfhg Specifically, we might be dealing with the process from "being" to "not-being". One that isn't born is never seen as a being, if I get it right.
So Heidegger is basically saying "Keep it G and fuck what the haters say"...?........
Basically.
upayjay1 i read this in sparky sweets voices
+upayjay1 More like: be what he thinks you should be instead of what others think you should be. XD
+upayjay1
Not really. This is a very, very dumbed down and oversimplified version of what Heidegger meant. But pop-culture has taken this version of the idea and ran with it for decades now. Which I am sure would have Heidegger spinning in his grave.
Yep. Heidegger was talking about true relation. He was trying to explain the nature of consciousness itself, how we interact with what comes over and against us. In the formulation that the average person would take from it, is that one should form some sort of egotism, and yes, Heidegger would certainly be rolling in his grave.
I miss 8 bit philosophy so much. I wish Wisecrack could afford to bring it back.
This was surprisingly self-empowering wow thank you.
You know what I hate? People that don't see the value in philosophy as a school. Like, people revere majors such as engineering, chemistry, physics, mathematics, computer science, etc., and yet take a shit on philosophy majors, as if there is no good reason to invest one's time and money toward a better understanding of one's self, the human species, and existence itself. And for the record, I am a physics major, but I have a huge amount of respect for philosophers, both throughout history and in modern time. We would be lost without them.
+The Final Resistance I agree but how would you hire a philosophy major? I'm imagining a job ad saying, "need one philosopher for the purposes of enrichment of the mind by sitting down on my comfy new sofa and thinking, while writing about what you thought."
I'm just not sure how we're supposed to make anything of a philosopher but to make them an author
+Halogen Productions In my country, philosophers travel all over the place, to give ethical advice and think instead of the client. Sounds weird I know, but people aren't brilliant here.
+Marvelous Quasar Pork Man Arround here philosophers travel giving speeches for college students and businessman, plus they occasionally speak on news channels. All that between being an author. Is it something like that you are talking about?
SuperTortilhaDeMorango It also includes that.
+The Final Resistance As a math major, I see the value in Philosophers. I think we are just bounded by the idea that Philosophers do not really have stable jobs such that a math or biology major may become an engineer or a doctor, or how an art major can become a freelance designer. Philosophers naturally don't want to capitalize on their thoughts, because if they did, they'd be corrupted by money instead of thinking beyond the human experience.
i think i live this way now. i view everyone as being on a treadmill, being effected by everthing around them, how others treat them etc. getting emotional from the daily grind. not being themselves, being how others say they are.
i live more seperate from myself and others, i see the big picture, i step back and view everything, like an out of body experience at all times. i dont let others shape me, i dont understand why people let others control them or be effected emotionally or shape their image of self. see your authentic self not how others view you, step back and see you and be your own being.
choose not to be effected or controlled by others and live a life you choose.
i feel like nothing really matters except existing how you choose, why get wound up with small things, just exist authentically and not the false self others say you are or view you as.
So basically it's Heidegger telling *it is you who define yourself*
I define who I am because Heidegger told me so
That's philosophy in general for you
Your reply is too cool 😂😂
Lol
I had this attitude even beafore i realised it exists x3.
Also
FFS Everyone is authentic
There was no being build from exacly same atoms with exacly same history ;v
The thing is that you don't really define yourself entirely, Heidegger admits that you are always bounded to and by "others" to some extent, you can't explain Heidegger's philosophy in 3 and a half minutes, and I don't even think you can fully explain Heidegger's philosophy in English, nor in Spanish (which is my native language), you should have at least some basic knowledge on German, but this video should guide you into reading him someday, discovering things thru heideggerian philosophy is quite a ride.
Its not working like that, there's a reason why Heidegger found a method of destruction before derrida deconstruction. We destruct and founding our way out of metaphysical error since Plato.
I consciously refuse to let Heidegger construct how I can live an authentic life.
When I die, I will only exist as others remember. Furthermore I am the sum of my surrounding environment. Trying to be an authentic person in this second doesn't change that this video gave me someone else's version on how I'm supposed to be 'authentic' and that when I die this 'authenticity' will cease completely.
I find that these videos leave a much better impression if you don't read the comments. Keep up the great work guys.
Was this just a 3 minute explanation of Y.O.L.O.?
Yeah, Next week will essentially be using the works of Diogenes to say "smoke weed erryday"
***** But how does one smoke weed erryday if they are to high to notice the day has ended, therefor time is now broken.
What does this video have to do with yolo
Marvin Etruw
The people see what they want to see.
They saw “I’m going to die eventually anyway + Don’t tell me what I to do”. Sadly, they missed lots of other aspects, like “I will live my LONG life how I see fit, regardless of your opinions (be they good or bad)”
YOLO is essentially the them bastardization of Heidegger's philosophy
Shakespeare said this much more simply, "To thine own self be true."
Masterof7s yeah, but that came out of the voice of a prating knave.
The entirety of existential thought can be found in Shakespeare. I forget who said that, but it's true.
hell is in other people
"If you seek authenticity for authenticity's sake you are no longer authentic."
Jean-Paul Sartre
1:18 - 1:20 who gets coffee and waffles at a sushi bar? haha a wonderful episode of 8 bit philosophy, it has really helped me out with me figuring out my own sense of self. Thanks Wisecrack.
Haha :)
Actually you can get way more than this in a sushi bar inside the world of River City Ransom
I am smarter today. Thank you.
You're welcome.
+Cris Oliveira or schroedingers cat
Hey baby! What's your Dasein?
This is the exact line of thought I have been pondering the past month. Thanks for clarification Wisecrack!
You got it.
Wisecrack
Thanks guys! And double-thanks for the Karl Marx episode. Funny I never learned this stuff from watching PBS as a kid. Hmmmm....
Honestly there is no better channel than this one. The way you combine education, entertainment and technology is fantastic. So happy you combined these different series into one brilliant hub of knowledge.
For some reason whenever I see something with the message that you should live like *you* want to live, instead of how other people want you to, it makes me really happy. I'm still trying to set myself on the track of doing that
But, what if some law-abiding citizen sees a "be who you want to be" message and decides they want to become a serial killer?
That's when they decide to join the military :P
It's midnight and the paper is due tomorrow in class. And here I am
Heidegger basically explained "Carpe Diem" (or a sort of YOLO for the uninformed) in a way that makes us independent from social acceptance. But one can't live without depending on another, so is Heidegger's theory flawed? I think not, as Heidegger's philosophy does not indicate TOTAL isolation from society. It simply suggest that independence can be valuable, as you don't depend on public opinion for your daily choices or rather "routine". In much simpler terms, you don't really care what people think about you whether good or bad. Thought I clarify for some people since some were questioning how this make sense and how it appliea to us. Thank you Wisecrack for a great video and more food for thought :)
+1:30 What about conceptualizing improvement? You see a hammer separate and independent when you create a longer handle, a claw, a better wedge?
Ah... my favorite philosopher illustrated by my favorite NES game. Wisecrack, thank you.
I've tried mushrooms back in 2015, which kinda went great during the night itself but in the aftermath made me aware of the concept described here, my death being my own, it was kind of hard to describe what changed my perspective to others because I never believed in the afterlife or anything, so there was no part of my reality shattered and yet it felt like there was somehow, it caused me some serious anxiety and in some ways I isolated myself doing a lot of me things like hobbies and binche watching stuff, and I gave a constantly pannicked and stressed impressions at work, my employer at some point just couldn't have me working like that anymore, but two jobs later I've now found a place where I'm seriously feeling like besides earning my salary I also spend my time doing something meaningfull and I've gotten in a good mental state because of that again, this video still helps putting that time into perspective a bit better
I'm not trying to sell a cliché like 'say no to drugs' but if you're as insecure as me at that time (even lying to my fucking parents about having had sex) you might want to be carefull with them
I still can't bring myself to call this wisecrack hahah. I like everything being under the name. Thug notes
This was nice. Probably the best so far...
"Find death, before death finds you" - Only when i felt myself as nonexistent, was the moment in which I felt the most alive.
Since the brain is essentially a sponge that absorbs stimuli which forms your personality, isn't being completely independent of everyone theoretically impossible?
wow
See the existentialist attitude is to believe otherwise. This is of course naive to do since we are, without a doubt, creatures living in a mechanical world. For existentialists like Kierkegaard this isn't a problem because man is a free being whose freedom stems from the self that is ultimately spirit and not mechanical. For the others its a matter of will and that's good enough I suppose to exert some belief to the contrary and further a subjective reality. To be brief, as a human being you are uniquely a creature with the ability to somehow suspend the mechanical and live an 'authentic' life.
+JandJandJandJandJ uh, the human being is social by nature. I mean, I only am myself in relation to another person so, how could you ever be completely independent if the very definition of human being is to be social. You would simply cease to be human. Take the ;Tarzan in the jungle for example .
+JandJandJandJandJ See, whether that knowledge exists in a vacuum or as a result of society's influence on you, it still belongs to you absolutely, and no one can revoke or refute that.
That's a really cool way to put it 'suspend the mechanical to live an authentic life'. Thank you.
Or as Jimi Hendrix said, "I'm the one who's gotta die when it's time for me to die. So let me live my life the way I want to."
Praying to GOD for a more peaceful future makes me happy. Thanking God for blessing my family for 3 things I really need in life, which are Food, Shelter, and health. Everything else is a want.
I tired reading the introduction of Being and Time the other day and my god that book is complex with it's abstract wording and such, but it is well worth it to march on through the book for the search of knowledge. Great video!
I love this. I should share it with my fellow philosophy majors :D
After laying a groundwork of important thinkers' profiles, it would be nice to see some episodes that put philosophers with critical disagreements with each other in a head to head point/counterpoint match.
This was the best one yet. Very concise and clear.
Loving the show guys!
Best one yet. Kunio/ Technos Japan sprites are always fun to work with.
i keep trying, being real and true to yourself is easy to say, but not so hard to do, especially in a world built upon caring what others think or you'll be alienated and worse. one slip up on social media and you can even get threats, that's scary, and not a great thought when trying to remain positive and determined
This video was awesome! Never stop guys!!
This is my favorite channel on youtube
Incredible. Love the videos keep people thinking.
Was that Husserl at 2:51?
This is a beautiful thought sandwich, ty. =3
Great vid man keep em coming
Please continue to make these!!!
just wandering the authentic dasein requires not only detachment but a great dose of courage, that´s the price to pay to get it real. It´s like taking the "red pill"
The fallen Dasein does not realize his fallen-ness when witnessing objects ready-to-hand become present-at-hand, (Hammer Example) rather due to something Heidegger names, the call of conscience. Dasein deals with 'guilt', not of actions, rather one of not owning up, taking responsibility of what is ownmost, this is built into the existential structure of Dasein's being. This guilt/ call of conscience (as anxiety did) exposes Dasein to his own being as finite. And Dasein as 'truth'/ unfolding/ disclosing. Understanding this call of conscience/ guilt represents a "conversion" in Dasein (Religious language deliberately used, reference Kierkegaard) what allows him to take a particular stance towards death; anticipatory resoluteness. This particular mode of being toward death of anticipatory resolute disclosedness is what Heidegger calls an authentic mode of being.
You guys should do Stirner next. I find his look at individuality very interesting, and laugh when people try to call objectivism egoist, when it clearly isn't. Your video could clear some misconceptions
Nathan, you sound like Peter Jones from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
this was surprisingly very good and helpful
The way you pronounce "Dasein" is adorable! :D (Don't worry it's absolutely correct)
Being In 8 Bit and Stuff. Is it a difficult book? Being and Time, Being-One-Self = Who is something I point out to Whovians a lot as the joke of Dr Who, Doctor of Being on Self. Suggest that book as manual to the originating philosophy of the character that seems lost now. Heidegger's Deism and Maslow's Self Actualization are similar but there is something more enjoyable about reading Being and Time.
"But that's not to say that one should isolate himself..."
Proceeds to move to a wooden country house for most of his life.
we are all being towards negation. the negation of everything we are is inescapable. if we take this idea seriously, we are then free to become who we are and who we are capable of being.
Dasein may live in ambiguity between being and non-being and its own temporal being-towards-death but focusing on presencing (Ereignis) as the way being is letting-be presence is life as it is. Avoid utility, reason, and technology's view of existence for existence as it unconceals itself. (See Heidegger: On Time and Being)
I don't know if you'll go back and annotate an almost year old video but the end is kinda seizure ish with the flashing red and blue stars
I think another good episode would be on "What does it mean to be creative?"
So much memories from river ransom city. Best nes game ever
So basically he's describing self-awareness/sentience? I wonder what he'd consider the concept of "being in the zone" as. Like when people reach a state of consciousness, during an activity, where there is basically no thought, just reaction. Although, he covered that probably with the blacksmith's hammer, it has become part of his body basically, which all comes from a lengthy amount of training. One of society's roles in our lives, is to conform us, to its rules, to its collected wisdom, train us basically. So I guess his point is being able to step away from the mindlessness, of the just doing. I bet a lot of early psychology concepts came from this book, cause it seems to lead there in a hurry.
This is a concept that is so similar to his expounding of being ready-to-hand, rather than being present-at-hand. So similar, I think, that it makes no difference. When dasein takes part in being-in-the-world with a thing in such a way that it is ready-to-hand, then the reflection and analysis of the Cartesian ego (that is carried through philosophy, the self as thinking and reflecting) dissolves into action. He discusses this from the get go of Being and Time as he must distinguish Dasein's analytic from the typical analytic of philosophy's history. Our analysis and reflection on the world arises with scientific practice or when things that were ready-to-hand break down (as the video said). According to Heidegger, must of Dasein's being is "in-the-zone" and not immediately reflected on. You use the doorknob to open the door, but you don't have to reflect on the nature of doors and doorknobs as you twist it. You hammer the nail in, without reflecting on the make up of the hammer and it's weight, length, etc. This is Dasein's everyday, originary being-in-the-world (a human being that copes and acts and interacts within a context and is made to reflect at times, though not at all times).
Hubert Dreyfus has some lectures posted for free as a podcast on iTunes University that may make all of this even clearer. He is a great American Heidegger scholar.
Keifer May Interesting. I think I see this clearer now. I was trying to put it in an evolutionary context, such as you are A, then become B. But the door knob example, when you first learn to use a door knob, you probably consider how it works, turn the knob, the bolt slides over, door can now open. Not so long after this, you'll just twist the knob, with barely a thought, until it breaks. Much like an athlete that trains many hours a day, in the moment, where to throw the ball, requires no analysis, until there is an error, and then second guessing of that first instinct. Also watching the video again, I see its much more than that, its about owning yourself, taking control, good stuff.
Thanks for pointing out the iTunes University, I'll check it out.
Exactly! I'm glad that helped. Reading it again, it was sort of obscure. Heidegger is difficult, but worth studying. iTunes University is awesome! Cheers, Jason.
I feel that Holden Caulfield is somewhere in the middle of this debate, constantly aware of the non-authenticity or "phoniness" of life yet unable to authenticate his own sense of being.
huh.
that sounds quite a lot like stirner.
yes, i've read some bits of "The Ego and His Own"
so, i'm the only one who noticed?
tsk tsk, fellow viewers.
TSK TSK
speaking of which, when are we going to discuss stirner?
Well done, this video is motivating
You guys should make a thug notes video, on the Huger Games Trilogy
Have you seen wisecrack? You should check it out!
I've recently become dasein minded. Now I'm trying to figure out how to be happy with it.
Not even close.Now considering depressive realism.
I'm not sure if I accept Camus' conclusion. Don't see myself ever being happy pushing the rock up the mountain, no matter how many times I tell myself to embrace it. Thanks tho.
Craig Candor I recommend watching two videos from Zizek: 'Why Be Happy When You Could Be Interesting?' and 'The Optimism of Melancholia'.
+Craig Candor It is what it is. You are an aspect of all things, which are aspects in themselves of the all-things that you are. You are whatever you choose, and reality manifests itself however you perceive it to. You are in control.
Miss this series
could you explain what the shit is deconstruction please?
Wow, seven months and no responses? That's fucked up.
Alright. Deconstruction is a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language that emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression.
Basically, in order to form an understanding of a concept from multiple angles and perspectives, you have to break it down, observe each piece on its own, and then see how they fit together. Now, I have deconstructed deconstruction. Gee, thanks... It's philoso-ception.
Maybe there should be trophies or achievements here in the 8 Bit community like console games - maybe for viewing, or the best and/or most comments by subscribers! Not a comment on Heidegger I know, but just popped into my head. Carry on Sprites!
I love this series, can't wait for you to tackle Camus. I'm wondering though is there a team of people behind all of the wisecrack videos? One person? Or one person behind each series?
Very good video, Wisecrack. I agree on all counts.
I for some reson always think about who I am in the world and when I do something how it effects it.For example misspelling could agitate some one hint hint or the could have noticed this after reading or saw this part first
Gonna give me my own stroke with that ending there mate.
i have that ownbeing since may 2016 and i didn't know that that was the name for it
No matter how often i use a hammer, i will never not recognize it as being separate from myself.
Don't forget, the question of metaphysics itself is invalid from the start because it conceived of itself as separate from Being, opposed to being as being
I miss so much the authenticity of this series, that is, this series as itself.
But many animals are not aware of their existence as individuals ans not knowing they are going to die. Does this mean they don't live authentically?
Metaphysical Axiom right. But that didn't answer my question
Actually, many animals understand death. Like vultures waiting for you to die before they eat remains. Some animals wait by dying animals, to apparently ease their pain through death... They are aware of their existence as individuals, but for almost all other species except us, and maybe the animals we have taken under our safety, see it makes sense to thrive in some tight community - like ant colonies, herds etc. Although I admit some lack that understanding of their own existence maybe, but it is like us through childhood we lack sentience. A baby could crawl into a road, and be ran over. But with age and understanding, we can tell that is not such a good idea. Similarly a puppy could wander into the road, and some grown dogs still do. But most understand danger, and actively avoid it to preserve themselves.
Is anyone going to bring up how in spite of how Heidegger was important to post-Neizchtean philosophy is finally detecting how for +2000 years Western philosophy had been obsessed with "what is being?" instead of "what is (the process of) becoming?" (something more expanded on in "Eastern" philosophy)--it's important to know *how to read him politically* since he let his stuff be used for Nazism,which is something he didn't really publicly apologize for expressing regret once privately.
-_- aaannnndd I hope for articulate discourse on this instead of "reductio ad Hitlerum" which is something which afaik didn't even happen in the Episode 2:the Nietzche vid.
Why do you guys keep numbering these? It's kind of pointless really. Noone in a few months will be saying to themselves. "AH! It's so aggravating! want to find my favorite episode of 8 bit philosophy but all I can remember about it is which order it came in! Why can't these be numbered?!" if you didn't number it. A minor complaint I know.
Good point. It's just habit at this point. I wanted people to know it was a series. I think that's pretty obvious now. ;)
Wisecrack i am also for numbering it helps determine if there was a delete in the playlist later on
Mindblowing.
Your ownmost just can't be alienated neither individually nor collectively 1:59
The HitchHiker's Guide To The Galaxy has this to say on the subject of being:
Things just happen, what the hell.
Hey! how about "Free Will" by Sam Harris?
Guys, Heidegger is saying "just say no" to interreferential social pressures on autopersonality ideation.
Kakyoin, is that you?
My friend shared this on Facebook. I'm Subbing because this is awesome.
That game is AWESOME! Also, great video.
great work :)
Great stuff.
I think it may be important to note that Heidegger, like many philosophers, never really completed his philosophy and often challenged assertions from his seminal early works later in life. Authenticity as presented here is much more attractive to a young person who hasn't built a life than to an adult who has. The balance between a purely authentic but isolated life and choosing to conform becomes more important.
Seeing how my original comment is irrelevant to this reply string, I'll just remove it. :P
Go down and see a pretty damn long and thoughtful conversation about existence and all that jazz. It just goes straight over my head that's for sure! XD
The soul always comes to mind whenever I think of this dilemma but I don't believe in souls so it makes it a lot easier for me to digest.
When pondering the existence of an intangible soul and its connection with your physical form - is there any room for a soul when your brain does pretty much everything (this is without getting into us having essentially an extra brain in our gut)? If something happens to your brain, like a defect or disease, are you truly the same person? If the person suddenly can't count, or remember faces, or see colours, or form sentences, why would your soul be able to?
The fact that brain damage changes your personality makes it easy for me to think of death as somewhat permanent. On the other hand if everything keeps changing and the cells in our bodies replace themselves constantly, what keeps us being us? Having the idea of self even though the self literally isn't itself anymore?
Our perception of the self may be in the connection between neurons, the information that travels between them. I'm not a scientist with a degree in brain chemistry or whatever, so this might just be hogwash. So the idea of the self stays intact between the cells, so if one gets replaced the others "fill it in" on the whole "self thing". Maybe?
I don't think death is a complete end - only an end to that perceived existence, not existence itself for any of the parts that make up that person since nothing just disappears (something something thermodynamics). But I have a hard time seeing the self continue as itself after brain death, especially when ones personality deteriorates at the same rate as the brain.
------------------------------------
Don't know why I chose your comment to latch on to but I just wanted to share my thoughts. These are my thoughts on the whole atheism/theism debacle you touched on and its relation to philosophy. By the way I'm an atheist if it wasn't apparent yet.
This is about philosophy not religion and philosophy is about discussing ideas. Basing thoughts about life, the universe and everything on an ancient text and trying to shoe-horn ideas to fit with that is pretty intellectually dishonest when we're all trying to find a somewhat suitable answer to a dilemma. Having religion being a constant "Nope, you can't do that" to new ideas stifles discussion and changes the talking points from being about the topic at hand to instead being about the particular religion in question and its (almost always bullshit) answer to the dilemma. I can see how this last paragraph might be seen as a giant "shut up with your religious nonsense" editorial piece but I just love discussing ideas, proper ideas, instead of getting nonsensical proofs about Jesus' virgin birth, Mohammed's unicorn ride to heaven or Vishnu's millions of avatars making sense - all things that can be interesting to talk about but sadly don't make a lot of sense / have no proper relation to the topic at hand. That discussion belongs in a theological debate, not in a philosophical one.
Nicho now THAT is what I call a comment! Thanks for the interesting read :)
Mark Dano
thanks man. It's nice to have a forum where you can actually put your thoughts down instead of it just lingering in your head. In a comment section for a video about being authentic I guess it makes sense that it would give me the courage to actually be authentic to myself.
And even though I'm supposed to be authentic and not base my emotional state on others' thoughts about me, I still feel a lot better after your comment :) thank you. Being social creatures I guess we can never completely shake the influence other people have on our lives, however small it may be.
Nicho
another thing i think lends credence to the idea of a soul, of life being more than just where it stops at death is the measurable effect someone has on the world and those around them, even after they're gone. i can go watch videos that have dead people in them, hear their voices, see them, they can still change my thoughts and opinions, hell, a lot of people in this series are long dead and they're still effecting the world,...how do you quantify that? i really like the idea presented in inception about the power of an idea, a concept that we can't very well define, not a fact, but a thought, that passes to others, a spoken word virus of the mind that can extend almost infinitely, as long as there's new people to pass the idea on, so how can i believe my existence will end with my death, when i see proof all around that others who have died continue to effect the world and the people in it?
RDeathmark
About affecting other people after your death - I do consider it your actions (or "works") that affect people not "you" as a being. You may have been the actor at some point but afterwards you're not guiding them consciously.
Say a man cuts a path through a forest. Long after his passing, people still walk on that road. But do you take that as him guiding them after his death, affecting them as it were? Or is it merely that his works affect people because they "outlive" him?
I say to this quandary that there are people, and there are the works of people. In this case it is the works of people that affect other people long after their passing, not an immaterial soul reminding you of them after their death.
And even then - we do have brains for a reason. They are pretty much organic computers that can store information and utilize it. That's why you can be affected by things. Be it from a living or dead person doesn't matter - it is data in the purest sense of the word.
Also, consider this. The measurable effect of someone is directly proportional to how much knowledge people have of the person and his works. If you live alone in a forest in Siberia and you have not shared a single moment with another human being (for the sake of argument), would you not have absolutely no effect on anyone, ever? Maybe your bones would be discovered centuries later, but that's only if you don't decompose naturally. My point being, if no one knows you exist/existed, no one can be affected by you. So it has nothing to do with souls but all to do with memory.
Your actions matter if you want to be remembered. Not what you think. Unless we can at some point store memories to be shared with others directly, you have to speak out if you want your authentic self being remembered. Or else, to invoke Plato's idea of the Allegory of the Cave, they will merely remember your shadow.
Feel free to add anything more if you want, I'll be glad to discuss the idea of a soul further for the sake of a friendly discussion :)
I need help with authentic and inauthentic existence :'(
I think, therefore something exists (ether me or something that simulates/represents me). Thus, I think, therefore *at least 1 thing* exists.
However, with just 1 thing in the universe, movement nor change would be possible; there would be no way to distinguish any type of variety, there would be nothing else than simply *it* ; in order to have an information code that can represent things other than itself, through combination, the code must have at least 2 variants - the concept of Boolean data, or a binary system. Thus, something else must exist! We have the *thing* , and the *something else* .
So, remaking that first statement:
*I think, thus something exists and at least something else also exists.*
What happened to thug notes ?
Wait, but to question the meaning of being wouldn't we need to know what being actually is? One can not question what they can not recognize.
Tried reading 'Being and Time' and that book is impenetrable as fuck.
i need more Heidegger!!!!!!!!!!
Interesting. It's almost like we fear dying alone because we want to take others down with us.
0:36 u dont have enough money to buy
secret lore: He stole it.
Thank you.
Wait a second.... This voice is bloody familiar... It's like the computer's voice from Courage(the cowardly dog show)? By the way... What do you mean that "dead" is = "not being"? "Not being" can also mean "not borned"; in both cases it's = "not exist" (just that in the next one you are "anymore" if you know what I mean)...
+drgdfhg Specifically, we might be dealing with the process from "being" to "not-being". One that isn't born is never seen as a being, if I get it right.
Do Wittgenstein!
Dangg great video though , definitely food for thought
Ah, but Dasein *is* its understanding... The thought bubbles make it seem as though Dasein were an object for itself, which is what Sartre thought.