Dr Dodson, you are a marvelous professor. I discovered you just a few days ago. You are a great benefactor for humanity! I'm grateful to life and to you!!! 🙏🙏🙏
I really appreciate all your lectures, I’m learning so much as you simplify complex theories and texts. So easy to listen to. Keep up the great work . Thanks professor
I really appreciate your videos. Sartre ignited my interest in philosophy because his was the first philosophy that really connected with me in my intro to philosophy course and I am really enjoying diving deeper into his ideas. Thank you!
Thank you for sharing your lectures to the public. They are gold!!! By the way, I love your energy in this video so much on the topic about people who try to reject their responsibilities on their choice. it’s so hilarious.
I really enjoy these lectures! Not a student, but I am, coincidentally enough, a fellow introvert who did stand up comedy. I did it for five years, always told myself that’s who I am, I’m a comic, until one day I realized I just didn’t want to do it anymore. I quit drinking in January and I think I finally saw comedy for what it really is- a bunch of alcoholics who have convinced themselves of a pipe dream fantasy- this idea that they’re going to move to New York or LA and be rich and famous one day. Being surrounded by all that drinking and delusion just wasn’t healthy for me anymore. I enjoy writing and still do it every day, but now I’m kind of lost. I feel like my life is spiraling out of control but simultaneously, I have the most control I’ve ever had. I have a wife, a full time job with a lot of autonomy, I’m sober, really trying to avoid the type of escapism that has ruled my life up to this point. Any advice or any philosophers who could potentially relate to my situation? Loved your lectures on absurdism. That’s kinda of the lane of thinking I’ve tried to embrace recently. Thanks again!
I have been telling people for years that Scott is the most efficient toilet paper! I am 60 years old and have only bought Scott for 40 years. Scott is up there but the best consumer product out there is Viva paper towels. Miles above #2; not even close. I am not a student but I thoroughly enjoy your lectures. Listened to Camut a few times each and now going through Sarte. I have tried a few other professors on UA-cam lecturing on the same subjects, but you by far have the best presentation and our the easiest to listen to. 30 minutes with you go by in a blink. I know that a professor is not what you are but I am glad you choose to be one today.
Excellent lessons for a student of biology who is interested in philosophical understanding of living. You are doing wonderful job by making complex ideas very simple. Thank You., Professor Eric Dodson.
No professor of Philosophy in the Philippines could explain the philosophy of Sartre in understandable and simple terms as you do. Why should Philosophy be made to sound abstruse and complicated when it can actually be taught your way. Feynman, Einstein, and academics of similar persuasion, believe that if you cannot explain an idea in a simple way, it means you did not understand it in the first place. Thank you for explaining Sartre's rich philosophy in understandable terms for the world to appreciate it. More videos sir.
I agree with how you are explaining our ability to change... even our personality. Kidnapped individuals, lost individuals- disconnected from their previous roles and lives, have demonstrated major changes. Yes, some caused by abuse suffered- BUT- there are drastic personality changes. Deliberate and intentional and consistent focus will do it.
Magnificent lectures, i am amazed to find such informative and grateful lecture done by such respectful , knowledge and sincere professor of university of north carolina . Best regards 🙏🏼🌹 Tavassolie
Siddharthisizing. Evolving lurker; loving your teaching of other paths. Gettin' me a begging bowl (with a sign that says CHANGE). Naa, but I could. Ahh.
Anyone who has ever moved, as an adult, to a different state or country will understand that our ability to change our behaviors etc, aka adapt, can be done- but it's a very time consuming and challenging process!
Ha ha... I'd take that as an auspicious sign !!... I often think that when strange "coincidences" appear in our lives, it's really life's way to trying to draw our attention to something... life's way of trying to get us to perceive & experience something that we might otherwise just overlook.
@@EricDodsonLectures I just started my weed break a few days ago & BAM! 420 liker & then someone in the comments of the 5th lecture has a profile pic of a nun named Sister Maryjane smoking a joint. Yeah, I'd take that as auspicious signs, in that I'll be more successful in feeling a buzz after the my break. Thank for the wisdom & YT for showing your video in my feed. Peace!
@@Noise-Conductor ... Well, I've always felt that certain substances can be useful in expanding our consciousness and showing the outer perimeter of reality. However, the real challenge is to do all of that on our own... to become agents of the infinite in our everyday, unfiltered awareness. Maybe that's the crossroads where you're finding yourself these days. Anyhow, I did a video on what I've learned from psychedelics on my main channel. Here's a link, if you're interested... ua-cam.com/video/i5W2XoSZgXU/v-deo.html&ab_channel=EricDodson
It's not intuitively known, at least in my perspective, that one can emphasize and cultivate the "opposite" of their own personality traits until they're informed of the possibility that they can, i.e. Sartre comes along and calls determinism a fallacy, and people listen listen to him, then take heed of it, thereby putting in an effort to change themselves. However, wouldn't the introduction of this "freedom to change" by Sartre only serve as the latest "prior cause," to which, effectively, served as a catalyst for change, and thereby, once again, negating the notion of free will? They had to first become introduced to the idea that cultivating opposite personality traits was a possibility. Why couldn't they arrive at this conclusion themselves if they already had the free will that Sartre claims they had? (Love these lectures, btw. I too have a science background and degrees in pure maths, and I find that as I get older I'm more and more interested in this stuff.)
Well, from Sartre's perspective, even the kind of self-awareness that would seem to be a necessary prerequisite to laying claim to our factical freedom... is itself a product of the way we're living out our factical freedom. For instance, let's suppose that our our bodily facticity allows us to become reasonably self-aware (that is, we're not suffering from mental retardation, or catatonic schizophrenia, or some other debilitating condition). In that case, what's really stopping us from taking up, say, meditation as a vehicle for improving our self-awareness? Doesn't it basically boil down to our ongoing choice to pursue something else in life, instead? And if we're living in a culture that hasn't introduced us to the idea of meditation, what's stopping us from simply sitting quietly in the sun for a while? In other words, within the inevitable limits of our facticity, perhaps we're ultimately as self-aware as we decide we're going to be... because self-awareness, like most other things in life, is mostly a matter of deciding to pursue it, and then making a *practice* out of it -- even if we don't have particularly good instruction from the people around us. And because self-awareness is a function of our ongoing choices, so too is becoming aware of the reality of our freedom. Basically, within the limits of our facticity, we're as aware of the reality of our freedom as we decide we're going to be. And as a consequence, isn't the deeper truth of life that, even if we've *never* pursued self-awareness or freedom before... at any and all points we could decide we're going to do so, and then sail our ship into those uncharted waters? Anyhow... nice question!! And I always appreciate hearing from one of my fellow STEM peeps who's looking to explore the larger horizon of things. Gratitude. Eric D.
No, I *LOVE* symphonic metal. Anyhow... maybe the message here is that great minds think alike... ha ha... Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to watch & listen. Gratitude. Eric D.
@@EricDodsonLectures I feel symphonic metal is not very popular in the US, so finding an existential psychology/philosophy professor who also loves it must mean something. I wonder if it would have been the favorite music genre of Sartre and Camus too. I'm extremely grateful the internet helped me find your existence, and that you make the time and effort to post these videos! Existentialism was my favorite genre of literature in high school, but my college didn't really have courses in it and I didn't know there were schools that had specific programs for it, so I majored in "English Literature, Language, and Criticism" (and minored in music and theater) but I wish I could have majored in existentialist philosophy and psychology. I want to go to graduate school and am thinking about pursuing existential philosophy and psychology (either as a professor or a psychotherapist, or possibly both), so listening to your lectures is helping me decide if I want to do that. Truly, THANK YOU! :)
@@therapturedmichelle ... Yeah, I don't think symphonic metal is too popular in the U.S. But then again, probably existentialism isn't, either. Anyhow... if you like the stuff on this channel, you might like the content I'm creating on my main channel. It's more about open exploration, and is a little less didactic. If you're interested, here's a link to a video I posted a day or two ago on that channel. It's about why life is so hard... ua-cam.com/video/9nH_HmiHBc4/v-deo.html&ab_channel=EricDodson
Sure. I could take up the project of mediation to train myself to not have an overt emotional reaction when someone baits me. But the thing is. It has to occur to me to begin this project in the first place. This is something I can’t chose.
Hi, just want to say thank you for these lectures! I also have a question : how does the notion of being constituted merely by one's choices apply to (especially early) childhood, when your brain is still growing and certain patterns of behaviour (which you may call choices, but are perhaps less conscious at that stage) are established for the very first time? In other words, besides the fact that you can later decide to establish patterns negating the one's you established during your growing up, is radical freedom applicable to childhood? From a nostalgic perspective, we regard childhood as freer than adulthood, but aren't our choices less conscious / more dependent on our nurture than later one when we can take full responsibility for ourselves? Have a great day!
That was precisely how Adolf Eichmann argued his case before an Israel court. He said he was not responsible for the death of millions of Jews because he was then just obeying orders. He perceived himself as an automation who could not choose otherwise. Philosophy should be taught in all military academies in the world to teach would be soldiers the importance of a critical mind that can say NO to illegal or immoral orders at all cost.
Are we REALLY free? I think that choosing is pretty easy when it comes to pizza toppings. But what about basic survival instincts? If someone is robbing me, and asks me to CHOOSE whether to give them my belongings or otherwise they'll kill me. Is that really a choice if it is determined by coercion?
Well, it probably seems like you have no choice in a situation like that. After all, you just have to hand over all your money, right? But the fact is that you could always choose to fight the robber. Or you could choose to run away. Or you could choose to try to talk your way out of it. Or you could choose to start praying to God for a miracle. Or you could choose to act like a complete idiot, hoping he'll get frustrated and leave you alone. Or you could choose to hand over half of your money, and claim that you need the rest to pay rent... you're probably getting the idea, which is that even if someone is trying to coerce you, you still have plenty of choices (and hence plenty of freedom) about how you respond to it. And the fact that you make one choice as opposed to another doesn't actually determine whether you end up getting killed or not. After all, some people choose to give all their money, and still wind up dead. Other people choose to fight, and then make it out of the situation alive. And all of that still says nothing about how you choose to respond emotionally. But no matter how you slice it, there are plenty of choices. And the same is true of our more primitive survival drives, too -- like being hungry, for instance... it's always a matter of what we choose to do about them.
@@EricDodsonLectures Is this freedom somewhat debatable when it comes to survival instincts? Like, most survival instincts are associated with a clear aim, for example, we breathe so we won’t suffocate, we eat so we won’t starve to death, etc. In the robbery example, we are free to choose our aim (for example, to save money, to save our life, or use this as a chance for suicide, or some bizarre aim like to elope with the robber to North pole and watch a star war film with them while eating roasted penguin?? Technically possible??) With our aim in mind, we are then free to choose our actions. Give the robber money, fight the robber, ask if they like Star Wars films, etc. There is no direct correlation between our aim, our action, and the final outcome, since the robber is also a person, and they too have an infinite amount of choice. However, when it comes to survival instincts, there is always a direct consequence linked with the action. One can never aim to gain weight (they might have a million reasons to gain weight!), then choose to starve. Or aim to gain oxygen, then choose not to breathe. Does that count as limited freedom?
I would like to see you talking about "determined" from sapolsky. Because I love Sartre and I am really into being and nothingness, but at this point my impression is that you went into a really one-sided reading of the text because factuality seems to be missing as a counterweight to bad faith and it seems to not come up in future lectures either. I will see. Love your thoughts but maybe there is a blind spot. Isaac Berlin gave me some tools to discriminate in the topic of freedom. Looking forward! Greetings from Germany
The claim that personality is an illusion because, through great striving, we could eventually change how we score on a test that measures some psychological trait (e.g. extraversion, neuroticism, etc...) strikes me as misleading as the claim that prisons are an illusion because convicts can eventually get paroled for good behavior.
It does get pretty abstract. My take-away is that the qualities one imagines--almost reflexively--which determine what one is or does, is result of choices and the inherent condition of human existence--freedom--and no amount of self-deception (bad faith) will change it.
I still can’t understand the sense of dizziness from the possible choice. Each choice bring us closer to our destination, and (choice) followed by production of the new dose of endorphins that totally opposite to the negative feeling of nausea. When I walk I do not decide what groups of muscles to flex/ extend to make the each step. Dragging each decision point to “vacuum” and than imagine how many times it should be done to reach a destination point is the most pathetic academic exercise, to me. The constant changing destination point (choice) on the middle of path should be considered as mental disease. Pardon my English, I’m not native speaker.
Sartre concepts works for a novelists ,play writer Reason why Sartre will survive in literature but will have no long term life in philosophy or psychology . Introvert and extravert .psychologically coined by Jung and often misunderstood and misused is dangerously unhealthy in the wrong hands . Again Sartre writes so x is on stage , for here and now . x on stage induces a look ,due to choices .
You choose a job you desire but that job doesn't hire you or dies off. You choose any other job, no one's hiring (hire freeze). You choose to work for yourself but nobody wants to work with you. You chose to be a professor as opposed to what else? The system created professions called professors. If it never happened, what would you be doing? The motivation comes down to salary and your ability. You're obviously not mathematically inclined or physically fit. Or does one really need to be these things? Many people have jobs they're not qualified for. The main ones being politics, policing and parenting. Which is a demonic job in a sense. You have to be broken mentally to submit to rules you don't like or agree with. It's to desensitize. It's to destroy autonomy and assimilate. Like you said about aquired taste. To have an abuser take one hostage and break them down to agree to their demands. Once you no longer bitch you're now considered emotionally intelligent. It's called breaking human will. The devil's MO. Study human needs and wants and destroy, deny, or tease with the appearance of acquiring, but snatch it away. Deny information, deny communication. And or distort the two and sit back and watch the little idiots try to make sense of the perceived reality they're being played in. And introversion and extroversion are not choices but byproducts of any given situation.
if I had professors like you, I would never ever stop wanting to learn
Dr Dodson, you are a marvelous professor. I discovered you just a few days ago. You are a great benefactor for humanity!
I'm grateful to life and to you!!! 🙏🙏🙏
You are a GREAT TEACHER Mr.Dodson🙌
10:49 ❤❤ I have watched it 1000 times and yet to watch 2000 more times.
I really appreciate all your lectures, I’m learning so much as you simplify complex theories and texts. So easy to listen to. Keep up the great work . Thanks professor
I really appreciate your videos. Sartre ignited my interest in philosophy because his was the first philosophy that really connected with me in my intro to philosophy course and I am really enjoying diving deeper into his ideas. Thank you!
Thank you for sharing your lectures to the public. They are gold!!!
By the way, I love your energy in this video so much on the topic about people who try to reject their responsibilities on their choice. it’s so hilarious.
Eric, thank you
"No, I went psychotic a long time ago"
I really enjoy these lectures! Not a student, but I am, coincidentally enough, a fellow introvert who did stand up comedy. I did it for five years, always told myself that’s who I am, I’m a comic, until one day I realized I just didn’t want to do it anymore. I quit drinking in January and I think I finally saw comedy for what it really is- a bunch of alcoholics who have convinced themselves of a pipe dream fantasy- this idea that they’re going to move to New York or LA and be rich and famous one day. Being surrounded by all that drinking and delusion just wasn’t healthy for me anymore.
I enjoy writing and still do it every day, but now I’m kind of lost. I feel like my life is spiraling out of control but simultaneously, I have the most control I’ve ever had. I have a wife, a full time job with a lot of autonomy, I’m sober, really trying to avoid the type of escapism that has ruled my life up to this point. Any advice or any philosophers who could potentially relate to my situation? Loved your lectures on absurdism. That’s kinda of the lane of thinking I’ve tried to embrace recently. Thanks again!
I have been telling people for years that Scott is the most efficient toilet paper! I am 60 years old and have only bought Scott for 40 years. Scott is up there but the best consumer product out there is Viva paper towels. Miles above #2; not even close.
I am not a student but I thoroughly enjoy your lectures. Listened to Camut a few times each and now going through Sarte. I have tried a few other professors on UA-cam lecturing on the same subjects, but you by far have the best presentation and our the easiest to listen to. 30 minutes with you go by in a blink. I know that a professor is not what you are but I am glad you choose to be one today.
Just started working through your videos now, lovely stuff 👍
These. Lectures. Are. Golden. I’m so grateful for your excellent work, professor. Inspiring. Empowering.
Excellent lessons for a student of biology who is interested in philosophical understanding of living. You are doing wonderful job by making complex ideas very simple. Thank You., Professor Eric Dodson.
No professor of Philosophy in the Philippines could explain the philosophy of Sartre in understandable and simple terms as you do. Why should Philosophy be made to sound abstruse and complicated when it can actually be taught your way. Feynman, Einstein, and academics of similar persuasion, believe that if you cannot explain an idea in a simple way, it means you did not understand it in the first place. Thank you for explaining Sartre's rich philosophy in understandable terms for the world to appreciate it. More videos sir.
because professors of philosophy in the ph are incompetent
I agree with how you are explaining our ability to change... even our personality. Kidnapped individuals, lost individuals- disconnected from their previous roles and lives, have demonstrated major changes. Yes, some caused by abuse suffered- BUT- there are drastic personality changes. Deliberate and intentional and consistent focus will do it.
Magnificent lectures, i am amazed to find such informative and grateful lecture done by such respectful , knowledge and sincere professor of university of north carolina .
Best regards 🙏🏼🌹
Tavassolie
Siddharthisizing. Evolving lurker; loving your teaching of other paths. Gettin' me a begging bowl (with a sign that says CHANGE). Naa, but I could. Ahh.
Thank you for sharing this 🙏🏼
Perhaps, freedom really is just another word for nothing left to lose
Awesome lecture
Anyone who has ever moved, as an adult, to a different state or country will understand that our ability to change our behaviors etc, aka adapt, can be done- but it's a very time consuming and challenging process!
I'm the 420th liker for this video!
Great lecture Eric.
Ha ha... I'd take that as an auspicious sign !!... I often think that when strange "coincidences" appear in our lives, it's really life's way to trying to draw our attention to something... life's way of trying to get us to perceive & experience something that we might otherwise just overlook.
@@EricDodsonLectures I just started my weed break a few days ago & BAM! 420 liker & then someone in the comments of the 5th lecture has a profile pic of a nun named Sister Maryjane smoking a joint. Yeah, I'd take that as auspicious signs, in that I'll be more successful in feeling a buzz after the my break. Thank for the wisdom & YT for showing your video in my feed. Peace!
@@Noise-Conductor ... Well, I've always felt that certain substances can be useful in expanding our consciousness and showing the outer perimeter of reality. However, the real challenge is to do all of that on our own... to become agents of the infinite in our everyday, unfiltered awareness. Maybe that's the crossroads where you're finding yourself these days. Anyhow, I did a video on what I've learned from psychedelics on my main channel. Here's a link, if you're interested...
ua-cam.com/video/i5W2XoSZgXU/v-deo.html&ab_channel=EricDodson
Really good!!
One of your best......you're on a roll.....go for it!!!!
Have not listened to this yet. Have you looked at Sartre’s eyeballs? HOW does he do that??
This is good. I’m not gomma elaborate cause it’s obviouse. Great stuff. Quit stand up. :)
It's not intuitively known, at least in my perspective, that one can emphasize and cultivate the "opposite" of their own personality traits until they're informed of the possibility that they can, i.e. Sartre comes along and calls determinism a fallacy, and people listen listen to him, then take heed of it, thereby putting in an effort to change themselves. However, wouldn't the introduction of this "freedom to change" by Sartre only serve as the latest "prior cause," to which, effectively, served as a catalyst for change, and thereby, once again, negating the notion of free will? They had to first become introduced to the idea that cultivating opposite personality traits was a possibility. Why couldn't they arrive at this conclusion themselves if they already had the free will that Sartre claims they had? (Love these lectures, btw. I too have a science background and degrees in pure maths, and I find that as I get older I'm more and more interested in this stuff.)
Well, from Sartre's perspective, even the kind of self-awareness that would seem to be a necessary prerequisite to laying claim to our factical freedom... is itself a product of the way we're living out our factical freedom. For instance, let's suppose that our our bodily facticity allows us to become reasonably self-aware (that is, we're not suffering from mental retardation, or catatonic schizophrenia, or some other debilitating condition). In that case, what's really stopping us from taking up, say, meditation as a vehicle for improving our self-awareness? Doesn't it basically boil down to our ongoing choice to pursue something else in life, instead? And if we're living in a culture that hasn't introduced us to the idea of meditation, what's stopping us from simply sitting quietly in the sun for a while? In other words, within the inevitable limits of our facticity, perhaps we're ultimately as self-aware as we decide we're going to be... because self-awareness, like most other things in life, is mostly a matter of deciding to pursue it, and then making a *practice* out of it -- even if we don't have particularly good instruction from the people around us. And because self-awareness is a function of our ongoing choices, so too is becoming aware of the reality of our freedom. Basically, within the limits of our facticity, we're as aware of the reality of our freedom as we decide we're going to be. And as a consequence, isn't the deeper truth of life that, even if we've *never* pursued self-awareness or freedom before... at any and all points we could decide we're going to do so, and then sail our ship into those uncharted waters? Anyhow... nice question!! And I always appreciate hearing from one of my fellow STEM peeps who's looking to explore the larger horizon of things. Gratitude. Eric D.
omg, you're wearing a Nightwish shirt!! You like symphonic metal?! You like my favorite philosophers and my favorite music!!?!
No, I *LOVE* symphonic metal. Anyhow... maybe the message here is that great minds think alike... ha ha... Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to watch & listen. Gratitude. Eric D.
@@EricDodsonLectures I feel symphonic metal is not very popular in the US, so finding an existential psychology/philosophy professor who also loves it must mean something. I wonder if it would have been the favorite music genre of Sartre and Camus too. I'm extremely grateful the internet helped me find your existence, and that you make the time and effort to post these videos! Existentialism was my favorite genre of literature in high school, but my college didn't really have courses in it and I didn't know there were schools that had specific programs for it, so I majored in "English Literature, Language, and Criticism" (and minored in music and theater) but I wish I could have majored in existentialist philosophy and psychology. I want to go to graduate school and am thinking about pursuing existential philosophy and psychology (either as a professor or a psychotherapist, or possibly both), so listening to your lectures is helping me decide if I want to do that. Truly, THANK YOU! :)
@@therapturedmichelle ... Yeah, I don't think symphonic metal is too popular in the U.S. But then again, probably existentialism isn't, either. Anyhow... if you like the stuff on this channel, you might like the content I'm creating on my main channel. It's more about open exploration, and is a little less didactic. If you're interested, here's a link to a video I posted a day or two ago on that channel. It's about why life is so hard...
ua-cam.com/video/9nH_HmiHBc4/v-deo.html&ab_channel=EricDodson
Just teach me how to be so cool like you.
Thank you!
Hello. Existentialism links with Stoicism are very strong. The Stoics were dealing with same issues
Sure. I could take up the project of mediation to train myself to not have an overt emotional reaction when someone baits me. But the thing is. It has to occur to me to begin this project in the first place. This is something I can’t chose.
Hi, just want to say thank you for these lectures! I also have a question : how does the notion of being constituted merely by one's choices apply to (especially early) childhood, when your brain is still growing and certain patterns of behaviour (which you may call choices, but are perhaps less conscious at that stage) are established for the very first time? In other words, besides the fact that you can later decide to establish patterns negating the one's you established during your growing up, is radical freedom applicable to childhood? From a nostalgic perspective, we regard childhood as freer than adulthood, but aren't our choices less conscious / more dependent on our nurture than later one when we can take full responsibility for ourselves?
Have a great day!
That was precisely how Adolf Eichmann argued his case before an Israel court. He said he was not responsible for the death of millions of Jews because he was then just obeying orders. He perceived himself as an automation who could not choose otherwise. Philosophy should be taught in all military academies in the world to teach would be soldiers the importance of a critical mind that can say NO to illegal or immoral orders at all cost.
I would say we choose our actions but not our emotional reaction
Hi suggest a book to read more abt bad faith and related theories
Are we REALLY free?
I think that choosing is pretty easy when it comes to pizza toppings. But what about basic survival instincts? If someone is robbing me, and asks me to CHOOSE whether to give them my belongings or otherwise they'll kill me. Is that really a choice if it is determined by coercion?
Well, it probably seems like you have no choice in a situation like that. After all, you just have to hand over all your money, right? But the fact is that you could always choose to fight the robber. Or you could choose to run away. Or you could choose to try to talk your way out of it. Or you could choose to start praying to God for a miracle. Or you could choose to act like a complete idiot, hoping he'll get frustrated and leave you alone. Or you could choose to hand over half of your money, and claim that you need the rest to pay rent... you're probably getting the idea, which is that even if someone is trying to coerce you, you still have plenty of choices (and hence plenty of freedom) about how you respond to it. And the fact that you make one choice as opposed to another doesn't actually determine whether you end up getting killed or not. After all, some people choose to give all their money, and still wind up dead. Other people choose to fight, and then make it out of the situation alive. And all of that still says nothing about how you choose to respond emotionally. But no matter how you slice it, there are plenty of choices. And the same is true of our more primitive survival drives, too -- like being hungry, for instance... it's always a matter of what we choose to do about them.
@@EricDodsonLectures Is this freedom somewhat debatable when it comes to survival instincts? Like, most survival instincts are associated with a clear aim, for example, we breathe so we won’t suffocate, we eat so we won’t starve to death, etc. In the robbery example, we are free to choose our aim (for example, to save money, to save our life, or use this as a chance for suicide, or some bizarre aim like to elope with the robber to North pole and watch a star war film with them while eating roasted penguin?? Technically possible??) With our aim in mind, we are then free to choose our actions. Give the robber money, fight the robber, ask if they like Star Wars films, etc. There is no direct correlation between our aim, our action, and the final outcome, since the robber is also a person, and they too have an infinite amount of choice. However, when it comes to survival instincts, there is always a direct consequence linked with the action. One can never aim to gain weight (they might have a million reasons to gain weight!), then choose to starve. Or aim to gain oxygen, then choose not to breathe. Does that count as limited freedom?
I would like to see you talking about "determined" from sapolsky. Because I love Sartre and I am really into being and nothingness, but at this point my impression is that you went into a really one-sided reading of the text because factuality seems to be missing as a counterweight to bad faith and it seems to not come up in future lectures either. I will see.
Love your thoughts but maybe there is a blind spot.
Isaac Berlin gave me some tools to discriminate in the topic of freedom.
Looking forward!
Greetings from Germany
The claim that personality is an illusion because, through great striving, we could eventually change how we score on a test that measures some psychological trait (e.g. extraversion, neuroticism, etc...) strikes me as misleading as the claim that prisons are an illusion because convicts can eventually get paroled for good behavior.
Nice one
Just couldn’t understand the later half of this lecture, especially toward the end
It does get pretty abstract. My take-away is that the qualities one imagines--almost reflexively--which determine what one is or does, is result of choices and the inherent condition of human existence--freedom--and no amount of self-deception (bad faith) will change it.
this guys a nightwish fan lmfao based
I still can’t understand the sense of dizziness from the possible choice. Each choice bring us closer to our destination, and (choice) followed by production of the new dose of endorphins that totally opposite to the negative feeling of nausea.
When I walk I do not decide what groups of muscles to flex/ extend to make the each step.
Dragging each decision point to “vacuum” and than imagine how many times it should be done to reach a destination point is the most pathetic academic exercise, to me.
The constant changing destination point (choice) on the middle of path should be considered as mental disease.
Pardon my English, I’m not native speaker.
Sartre concepts works for a novelists ,play writer Reason why Sartre will survive in literature but will have no long term life in philosophy or psychology . Introvert and extravert .psychologically coined by Jung and often misunderstood and misused is dangerously unhealthy in the wrong hands . Again Sartre writes so x is on stage , for here and now . x on stage induces a look ,due to choices .
Love your lectures. But I think you slightly misunderstand personality theories
10:49 🤣🤣🤣
Wow! You went way off topic .
You shoud know that asian person listens your lesson.
You choose a job you desire but that job doesn't hire you or dies off. You choose any other job, no one's hiring (hire freeze).
You choose to work for yourself but nobody wants to work with you.
You chose to be a professor as opposed to what else? The system created professions called professors. If it never happened, what would you be doing? The motivation comes down to salary and your ability. You're obviously not mathematically inclined or physically fit. Or does one really need to be these things? Many people have jobs they're not qualified for. The main ones being politics, policing and parenting. Which is a demonic job in a sense. You have to be broken mentally to submit to rules you don't like or agree with. It's to desensitize. It's to destroy autonomy and assimilate. Like you said about aquired taste. To have an abuser take one hostage and break them down to agree to their demands. Once you no longer bitch you're now considered emotionally intelligent. It's called breaking human will. The devil's MO. Study human needs and wants and destroy, deny, or tease with the appearance of acquiring, but snatch it away. Deny information, deny communication. And or distort the two and sit back and watch the little idiots try to make sense of the perceived reality they're being played in. And introversion and extroversion are not choices but byproducts of any given situation.