John Vervaeke: If We Don't Address Nihilism, Democracies Will Erode Into Narcissistic Egocentrism
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 12. 2022
- In the podcast, John Vervaeke discussed the ongoing meaning crisis facing modern democracy and its potential solutions. Vervaeke, an Assistant Professor at the Department of Psychology at the University of Toronto and an expert in cognitive psychology and wisdom traditions, argued that the current political climate is plagued by a lack of shared meaning and purpose. He suggested that addressing this crisis requires a renewed focus on fostering wisdom and cultivating a sense of community and connection among citizens. He also discussed the meaning of left-right political spectrum and institutions. Recorded in September 2022.
In his own words the meaning crisis is: "at the root of modern crises of mental health, the response to environmental collapse, and the political system. We are drowning in bullshit-literally "meaninglessness". We feel disconnected from ourselves, each other, the world, and a viable future. Deeper than social media problems, political problems, even economic problems. They're deeply historical, cultural problems. Getting out of this crisis is tremendously hard and requires transformation in our cognition, culture, and communities. How can we find a solution? We have to reach even more deeply into the past to salvage the resources we can for such an amazing challenge. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, Jesus of Nazareth, Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha. Also modern figures like Jung, Nietzsche, Heidegger. Current work being done by psychologists, cognitive scientists, philosophers, neuroscientists." - / johnvervaeke
John Vervaeke has been teaching at the University of Toronto since 1994 and became an Associate Professor in 2019. He currently teaches courses in the Psychology department on thinking and reasoning with an emphasis on insight problem solving, cognitive development with an emphasis on the dynamical nature of development, and higher cognitive processes with an emphasis on intelligence, rationality, mindfulness, and the Psychology of wisdom.
NAŠE WEBY:
► ih21.org
► participace21.cz
► bezsvobodyslova.cz
ODEBÍREJTE NAŠE KANÁLY:
► CZcams: bit.ly/youtube_ih21
► Facebook: bit.ly/facebook_ih21
► Facebook Participace 21: bit.ly/fb_pa21
► Instagram: bit.ly/instagram_h21
► Twitter: bit.ly/twitter_h21
PODCAST SPOLEČNÁ ŘEČ:
► Spotify: bit.ly/spotify_spolecnarec
► CZcams: bit.ly/youtube_spolecnarec
► Apple podcasts: bit.ly/apple_spolecnarec
► Google podcasts: bit.ly/googlepodcasts_spolecnarec
► Soundcloud: bit.ly/soundcloud_spolecnarec
► Audiolibrix: bit.ly/audiolibrix_spolecnarec
► TuneIn: tun.in/pj2J7
► iHeartRadio: www.iheart.com/podcast/269-sp...
► YouRadio: talk.youradio.cz/porady/podca...
► České podcasty: ceskepodcasty.cz/podcasty/pod...
a john vervaeke/slavoj zizek conversation on democracy would be f*cking amazing
Thank you. I thought I was the only person on the planet. Zizek would open the true Hegelian world to him. His closer to Zizek than Peterson
Yes! so much closer!
@@Parsons4Geist Zizek closes things, not open
@@jankan4027 beautiful response. But sometimes for a hagelian sometimes the end of history/a closing is an opening 😁
Vervaeke is absolutely not Hegelian.
It's easy enough to compliment John, but kudos to this wonderful interviewer
It's great to see both evolving as conversation takes place.
John is getting so damn clear and refined in these conversations. Fantastic host too. Great stuff, gents. Many thanks.
My very first impression was of an unusually good host/interviewer. Better try to concentrate on his guest now!
Great conversation, nothing better than having John vervaeke for an hour!
Agreed
I watched this a 2nd time & the interviewer seemed more unique. He seems to be firing on all cylinders, like he's having epiphany after epiphany. Dr. V should have cancelled his flight and stayed longer. Usually, interviewers are more "playing the part," "measured." The excitement of the interviewer is a fresh difference to other videos.
So sad I found out too late John is in Cz … would have loved to hear him speak live or meet him/ talk to him. Well, perhaps next time. Hope you loved it here John. @johnvervaeke. Very much looking forward to your next series.
Its fantastic to observe how the conversation is evolving and maturing. Great stuff
A microcosm.
You are zn accident. Mean8ng is an utter illusion.
@@jimicunningable if that's how you see thew world then I wish you good luck, genuinely. Perhaps my wish for your well being is empty of meaning too from your perspective. Perhaps one day the abyss will start staring back at you.
@@jimicunningable
Is yours a meaningful statement?
To say that narcissistic egocentric utopianism is on the Left and the Right is bunk. It is on the Left only and they both know it. The faults of the Right derive from an excess of pessimism as Thomas Sowell explains. Other than that this is an excellent talk.
What a brilliant interviewer!
Great interview and super questions. Thank you 🙏
wisdom is not optional.
I couldn't stop watching even though it was very late yesterday, and then I got up still thinking all the time about what was said here.
The conversation is excellent and so much fundamental. The host you are a revelation and it was super satisfying to be able to watch you in action.
It was also a great pleasure to be able to watch John so engaged in what the host was saying, thanks to both of you.
I hope I don't waste what I was able to learn and understand here. I am so very grateful, so grateful. How lucky we are to have people like you! Probably I can understand to quite some extent what you are saying and delivering, but I would never have come to it and would not have been able to put it together in a meaningful way. All the best to all of you. Best youtube recommendation ever.
Love the way he spoka about Hitchens. Deep respect enfolded in legitimate critique x
I completely agree, the debates were/are tiresome, even though they had some nice insights at the time. "my world view is better than your world view"
requires you to trot out all the "silly people" who you want to debunk.
Is anybody really that smart for beating down a flat earther? It is sort of punching down is it not? Regardless, the flat earth symbology is embedded in a symbolic framework, namely that you ground yourself at the center, as if you inhabit the fringes you may fall off the edge of the earth into abyss, so to speak. In other words, ostracized from the community.
Thank you both for a wonderful dialogos!
Thanks John and Adam!
Loving this conversation 💕 Thank you both. Thanks John for your course on Awakening from the meaning crisis , it truly helped me be able to understand what you're talking about. I deeply appreciate the education you've provided, it makes sense and it is essential to understanding the meaning crisis and dealing with it in a healthy way that increases meaning in life. Always inspired. Bless you both! 🙏 To the interviewer, you really held a good interview and I think that what you've done is very important so I thank you for hosting John.
Thank you John and Adam. Hope ... yes and wisdom
Great questions on this interview! I really appreciated getting specific on things like the scaling of the Religion that is not a Religion. Just in general, this interviewer did a great job of understanding what was being said, and asking questions that really got Dr. Vervaeke to flesh things out in ways I haven't heard him do in other interviews. Thanks!
thank you so much for your thoughtful conversations
Wisdom is clearly needed.
Feeling lucky to be able to learn from John as a thinker and a complete person. Also really appreciating the interviewer's enthusiasm here.
Good convo. Thanks for sharing. Would love to hear more about trust. Seems like a prerequisite for much of what was discussed.
Yes, great conversation and kudos to you both.
Can I give Prof. Vervaeke a big hug?
...and, yes, the interviewer was exceptional.
I am inspired!
excellent conversation: john does a great job distilling his ideas and making them easy to understand. i'll have to relisten and take some notes.
John’s description of the subjective experience of someone in the meaning crisis was excellent. Spot on. 8:20
Great conversation. Would love to out in my Sunday best and go to church every Sunday to hear Vervaeke talk. What an incredible mind. Just an amazing man. And credit to the interviewer also great job.
Great job interviewer
It's important to note that the word "Utopia" = "Nowhere"
I like John mostly from the CZcams personalities 🤘 He makes sense for me when I come in CZcams. Thanks John
No kurva! To je dobře, že John vstupuje do povědomí i v ČR.
Reducing religion to its techniques leaves you without God and exacerbates the 'buffered self' problem. So many of the Eastern wisdom traditions are used by Westerners to bolster narcissism. Worship may make John V uncomfortable but it seems to be a missing component of his worldview, which leaves his project looking anchorless to me.
Prof. John Makransky addresses this FWIW. Basically he argues that worship involves practices of receiving love with intention to benefit people, and that it is a technique that can/should be used in secular practices. Ultimately the world (our subjective reality) becomes more loving by recognizing basic goodness more, and cultivating it.
@@innervoices212 Receiving love from where or whom? That's the point - worship isn't a technique. It's a relationship with the Creator or the Ultimate Reality, as the Indians would describe it.
These over-intelectual attitudes are still trying to manipulate reality, which is not religious, it is magical in essence, and therefore another expression of the violence of modernity.
@@ian111
1. JV's emphasis on practice seems to be addressed to your concerns about a modern mindset. He said we want to learn to fit our environment.
2. I don't think there's a personal creator to be in relationship with so what do you with me? Leave me in the outer darkness? The need for a pluralistic answer puts some constraints on what JV can propose.
@@23Hiya My point is to do with reducing religion to technique. I think it's bad for people, especially Westerners.
What I would do with you is discuss things politely and try to say what I believe to be true. After that, you are free to decide what you wish.
@@ian111 Maybe another way. Do you believe there is a correct way to worship?
The discussion on domicide and a lack of fittedness made me think of the idea of natural spaces from aristotle. There is a natural centre and we are moving towards that place. Feels much better than evolutionary progress or the causal atomization of modernism.
Would love to see Prof Richard Wolff of Democracy at Work interviewed here.
Our guest's elucidation of 'nihilism' in this context was a memorable highlight, worth watching just for that (somewhere after 8:00)
You can't build anything without thinking about the hierarchy, the body you are going to construct and inhabit. What does it connect to etc. I would like to see more talk about this and the spirits inhabiting / binding these bodies together. It is the critical piece of research that has been missed imho. We won't understand why large groups of people behave the way they do without doing this first. There is a lot of work to research the laws and game theory around this.
'Hedgehog in Space' are playing the Mercury Lounge this Friday I think.
Hi John
I wish, want to continue practicing Mental health nursing and NOT call it nursing. Is my near future thinking, big story made wee!
Thankyou for your shared discussion.💜
It appears I was the 912th subscriber! Interesting…
🌚☄️❤️💫
Music is everything, it is the soul of humanity and the heartbeat of consciousness. 🌚☄️❤️💫
If its being killed, who’s killing it?*
The neo-liberal socioeconomic order
57:00 what's the prediction here? this has already happened in most English speaking countries.
There's no sense watching this because I know the answer: We won't change.
Narcissism is one thing, egocentrism is another. Refer to article in Psychology Today: It's a Fine Line Between Narcissism and Egocentrism by Susan Krause Whitbourne Ph.D.
Tillich saide the same things after WWII. This really is not news news. Read Tillichs " The Courage to Be." Religion is important in that it gives you philisophical and theological basis to build from for life. The problem comes when one never moves beyond the basis. The symbols and signs you are taught early in life are what point one to Being Itself. Tillichs "Ultimate Concern."
I realize Tillich writes in almost a different type of language, but he was a theologian for theologians, but worth reading nevertheless.
I love the idea of a Russian spy starting the meaning crisis. That tickled me. Laughed for a good full minute.
Try the religion of your ancestors and you will be freed of all this
Our only hope in reviving the spiritual connection that was once felt in religion requires us to rework our comprehensive understanding of the cosmos as it relates to consciousness, and more importantly-self consciousness.
NewEra912 🌚☄️❤️💫
What he got wrong on this one is that he only analyzed it horizontally. That culture represents the plates of a human surface and that anyone of value can participate.
He was wrong in a vertical manner though. In the Roman tradition the gods have specific relationships with specific souls that are crucial and meaningful and can't be "stolen." To presume so would be arrogant and would cheat you personally out of finding and discovering what you already have. Your soul can only develop so far and once it's developed your limitations become clear to you. That's my experience.
Your reward for that is a type of perfect safety due to a type of perfect clarity due to a type of perfect courage. There's something courageous in knowing ones limitations and there's something cowardly in presuming to have no limitations. For example one cowardly thought that someone who presumed to steal culture would potentially cause someone to be afraid of insight. Insight presents a limitation because it's an outline of a limit. What has sometimes looked like "stealing" has often just been an agenda that's spanned the globe for thousands of years.
What do you mean will? It’s already mostly happened.
he seems to have a religious faith in democracy
Begin with truth and we have a chance, or continue lying and deceiving and we’ll fall further
@7:00 sounds like Civic Republicanism (no relation to modern Republican party). CR was (is) a political theory where states create citizens with civic virtue, and citizens create states with civic virtue (or that promote civic virtue). Possessing your rights is a sign that the state is virtuous (entrusting its citizens). But, citizens were expected to NOT exercise their rights for the sake/health of the collective. I.e., there was an entanglement that the health of the state depends upon the virtue of the citizen. Just because you have rights doesn't mean you should exercise them. They don't exist for personal fun. They're as important to _not_ exercise as they are to exercise. If the state who recognizes individual rights ceases to exist, then those rights will cease to exist (for all practical purposes). "Acting up" for the sake of doing so ("being that person because I can") isn't the same thing as responsible exercise of rights. "Responsible" is in the eye of the beholder, and a republic depends upon citizens having an eye for it, not just enjoying their rights.
If you can’t do it just because you want to it’s a privilege.
@@victorygarden556 That sounds good (and libertarian). But, ultimately my right to speech (let's say) is limited by time, manner & place restrictions. I can't stand on my rooftop at 2AM opining at great length on the gestation cycle of the mastodon. I can't march down the middle of the street without a permit. None of these mean my rights don't exist. They're just a matter of "balancing competing interests." "Ordered liberty."
Of course that can go too far. But, that proves the point of Civic Republicanism: your rights ultimately depend upon a society that respects them, enshrines them. Ergo, your rights (the quality of them) depend upon the health of the society that protects them. That's a reason to not (capriciously, selfishly) exercise them in some way that offends the society that protects them. (This doesn't mean _never_ offend society. Civic Republicanism emphasizes the virtue of the individual which would show itself in the individual's ability to know when it's time to offend society, versus feel-good, egotistical, selfish histrionics).
Libertarians (I was one) usually counter that rights are god-given (or arise from nature). They aren't given or taken away by society. But, this is talking past the topic. If you have an inherent right that society doesn't respect, that's almost like not having an inherent right (for all practical purposes). The topic comes down to reasonableness & pragmatics. That has a close analog to quisling & compromise which is offensive to many/most people. But, it doesn't have to be analogous. In Civic Republicanism, the difference hinges upon the essential character of the citizen (a character cultivated by the state if it's virtuous.).
You may not like this. But, it is reality. Look at Musk. He was demagoguing (from a CR perspective) about the absoluteness of free speech. Now he owns it and is imposing his own sense of propriety. There is no absolute rights, ever.
@@markfuller ultimately rights are for courageous people. If the government says your right is taken away and you respect that then the rights described weren’t for you.
I’d defend both the right to opine at 2am about mastodon reproduction and to fuck with somebody for not shutting up at 2am. Cities shouldn’t really exist as they are in my opinion so you are touching on a weird topic for me. Rural situations solve many issues. Cities can’t even produce their own sustenance. The population density is a choice people make which is fine but it’s stupid. 3 mil people in a city that can’t produce its own food? More space should be made if people made good decisions because then you could opine at 2am and also FEED YOUR OWN SOCIETY LMAO. If you can’t produce local food to sustain your settlement it doesn’t have a right to continue once I feel like selling food elsewhere.
Cities live off the back of rural giants holding their world up.
All the idiocy and issues with rights being violated solely by proximity to others that comes with population density are abhorrent consequences of broken natural law.
I agree degrading your right by purposefully making people mad is dumb but I have a 2nd amendment right everywhere I go, including countries that don’t respect it. Not respecting my rights makes the society that respects my rights in said country an underground culture, but it means nothing ultimately because people that respect my views still exist. It’s like being a Jew in Nazi germany. Does the fact that I’ll die for being Jewish change that I’m Jewish? No.
You could kill me for my belief in my rights and I’d still have them while you violate my right to life. Are rights ineffective at that moment? Yes. Best philosophy for respecting and revering the individual though imperfect? Also yes.
@@victorygarden556 _" ultimately rights are for courageous people. If the government says your right is taken away and you respect that then the rights described weren’t for you."_ I would say that rights are for all people, and preserved through more than courage (it takes strategic usage, not gratuitous trolling, for example, "just because I can."). In some ways you're saying rights are earned. That's what Civic Republicanism is all about. It just emphasizes a more cool-headed & responsible possession of rights rather than an assertive "use em or lose em" approach. It's just a matter of perspective, which is the correlation I saw @7:00 (and preceding).
The aspect of CR that seemed similar to me about what was being said at 7:00 is the balancing act between virtuous citizens depending upon the existence of a virtuous state (and vice versa). The citizen as a soldier, senator, self-sufficient farmer (not dependent upon the state except for providing virtue-promoting activities/responsibilities). In CR, there is no crisis of meaning. It is the state's job (if it's virtuous) to provide opportunity & responsibility rather than doing everything for the citizen just because the citizen wants it that way. It's a delicate balance in which citizens are fully empowered, but have an essential character that doesn't abuse that empowerment for mere entertainment, self-gratification. Why, because ultimately the citizen's quality of life (whether it has meaning/purpose, or a slave to the majority) depends upon the quality of the state. Both influence each other (in a delicate balance).
If you want to argue a libertarian perfection, ok. That's not CR and not what I was trying to share in regard to @7:00 (and preceding).
@@victorygarden556 _"Cities shouldn’t really exist as they are in my opinion so you are touching on a weird topic for me. Rural situations solve many issues."_
BTW: That touches upon Civic Republicanism very presciently. CR was predicated upon never-ending frontiers. The goal was for every citizen of the republic to be self-sufficient, with enough land to retreat to and withdraw from society (not be dependent upon it). That's not realistic anymore (and wasn't kind to aboriginal peoples who had their lands taken to make CR a reality).
There has been talk in academic circles about how to recover that balance of CR (more-empowered citizenry, more responsible. Ultimately, more meaning/purpose than citizen whose government litigates everything for them). Workplace Democracy has been a consideration. Giving employees more rights/responsibilities in the workplace. The idea being: we spend half our waking lives toiling for another (often "at will" with almost zero protection/investment). The CR philosophers of the past would call our present generation "palsied" (compared to virtuous). Incapable of living up to CR's principles. Why, because we're largely sharecroppers by comparison to the CR model (of self-sufficiency, and participation in government/civil responsibilities).
What I see in Civic Republicanism is a constant theme of avoiding a "crisis of meaning" through a delicate balancing act. The modern topic of how to get back to those ideals (through, perhaps Workplace Democracy) is one way to re-instill an investment in one's own life (not just an hourly laborer who can be on the street "for any reason, or no reason at all" in at-will states).
But, then, like Civic Republicanism thriving through the taking of other's lands (to expand the republic and provide self-sufficiency to the citizens), we'd be taking other's investment in business. We'd be dictating to business owners that they have to make business decisions through a vote of employees. In essence, the business owner wouldn't completely own their business. It would be something more like a union, but not as oppositional as unions tend to be (have developed into). More communitarian & cooperative, with shared interests (in _theory_, that is. This gets to CR's chicken/egg connundrum. WHich comes first, the virtuous state or the virtuous citizenry, which bot depend upon for existence? In the present "palsied" state of modern citizenry, I don't think Workplace Democracy would work well. I see everyone taking a vote to work on 1 day a week. :) So, that's always the question of CR: how to get from here to there. That seemed to be Dr. V's point about how to re-instill purpose and meaning institutionally, culturally. I see a very strong correlation between his point/topic and CR.).
But John, doesn't your solution to the 'meaning crisis' boil down to meditating a lot, doing some 'contemplation' exercises (which no offence, but I don't think anyone actually really gets) and some group therapy ('dialogos') or tai chi.
@@johnnyburt7255 Yeah....probably nothing would change
@@chopper84a I think what John brings to the table that's new is a conviction that no one is going to solve these interconnected crises by sitting alone in a room and thinking it out: if we solve them at all, we will solve them by gathering and working them out together. The tools, as you note, are not new, and could not possibly be. (PS If you don't "get" contemplative practices, I suggest you join some traditional established group with a good teacher, and give it a go for a few months. These are not things you try once or twice and "get.")
@@dalefavier2949 respectfully, it's my view that the contemplation stuff is an emperor's new clothes phenomena. I don't believe there is anything there of substance to get, rather than some deficit on my part preventing me from getting it. I got on the meditation train early, back in 2005, and meditated obsessively for years. In hindsight it was mostly a waste of time and i ceased the practice a couple of years ago and have never felt better.
@@chopper84a Oh, me too! I meditated conscientiously for about fifteen years, when I realized I had hit seriously diminishing returns. Nowadays it's not a daily habit, but something I do just every once in a while, as a refresher. My tong len practice, which was my main contemplative practice, is likewise in abeyance. But I found both of them terribly valuable, and they mark epochs in my life -- getting a grip on things that had previously driven me. But neither one -- nor anything -- is a panacea.
His full lecture: czcams.com/video/8U2caURO-d4/video.html
🌚☄️❤️💫
the interviewer is although pretty nervous really dialed in on this pretty complicated subject
He seemed passionate not nervous
Nihilism allows for courage strength and love.
That's where y'all been fucking up.
there are two meanings of nihilism. They went with the standard one.
Fair enough. In my life I've stayed focused but absent from religion for the most part until I got older.
The reason for that was a wise decision.
Most people who seem to be either religious or purposefully insane seem to lack a common sense and the best and simplest moral core and seem to suffer from a pathological insecurity. Like "are they different religiously? Will they accept me?"
In my experience the best seem to accept me regardless of religion as long as I behave appropriately.
That means in my experience that the foundation of being human is being human, not religious. Religion is like a hat that people put over their humanity.
To me if a hat becomes more important than the person wearing it it's time to have a new fashion design.
In other words it seems to me that religion in and of itself is fundamentally nihilistic to it's core in the dress of meaning, which is why there will never be a universal religion.
Some people like fedoras. Some people like scarfs. Some people like both. Some people like none.
@@bobnevels9125 The being of human is being human, true, but that means we are social beings, we share common goals, joint attention, we cooperate. Verveake calls this re-ligio, because he comes from philosophical anthropology and does not mean religious institution per se, or believe in supernatural beings. This "how to live together" is for him the most important question. And that he is trying find the answer from all kinds of sources, also from world religions.
Can we change the world? I doubt it. He doesn't mention economy - that is: he does not think logos, as a space of meaning making, in materialistic terms. And this system has its own life, we cannot force to change.
But on the levels of small changes, things can be maybe bifurcated in different direction.
Nihilism in its true meaning means to nihil all the bullshit, to nullify all the universal language, all the pensee de survol. In that sense is the only way, we will have to go true the eye of needle, true the fire of Shiva.
Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten! Any God? Something has to save us from the confrontation of planetary technology and modern humanity.
Nietzschean moral dichotomy:
Master: X is good, so I will use all my powers to produce X, including sacrificing others
Slave: The master morality sacrifices others and is evil, so X must be evil, for all plausible X (Hence Nihilism)
Alternative: X is good, but it will be the fruit not of my will but instead the fruit of my flourishing in harmony with the laws of nature (Dao)
I truly respect John Vervake but I just can’t see this project panning out. You can’t astroturf religious cohesion. Every religion on earth emerged from a single common narrative in the Fertile Crescent and spread across the world post Bronze Age collapse.
It’s not simply that humans are shaped evolutionarily by religion in general, we are shaped by this one singular shared mythos that has adapted to culture from time immemorial.
The domicile will continue until there is a return to the one human religious mythos.
Is bro an english professor or sum 💀
You can't have the functionality of 'religion' if you say that 'religion' is meaningless and only has a meta meaning/function. What you are really saying is that you want to invent a 'new religion' but one without a God (if you discount Buddhism, Jainism. etc).
The problem is that there is no solution. Any other conclusion is self delusion, or from external parties with self interested motivations. I’d prefer to know the truth than to make up a fantastical story.
We are just another another great ape, the only thing we have in our remit is survival for long enough to pass on our genetic information and helping to ensure our progeny survive long enough for onward transmission and so on. Any attempts from external sources to subvert this truth are done wholly in self interest to further the probability of their own genetic propagation.
Its a bummer, but that’s the long and the short of it, the totality. I try not to think about it too much, that’s my wholly unsatisfactory solution.
@@revermightstar8004Because it is possible to foresee a dualist world that is of atomic construction. As far as I know the Catholic Church doesn’t refute this.
@@revermightstar8004cause that is the totality, the essence of being. Anything beyond that is an irrelevance, regardless of it being empirical or non-empirical. Those atoms that form us are arranged in a coded order that includes the code for preservation of the original code. Therefore we are more than just atoms, that order of atoms is essential for function as self replicating machines.
If you were there before the big bang, would you have ever have predicted with any level of detail, what would unfold over the next 14 billion years?
If not, why would anyone presume to know anything about the observable universe, let alone the cosmos at large?
In those circumstances, if one had a full and complete understanding of the physical laws of nature in their entirety (I would estimate we are somewhere less than a 1% understanding of those laws). Then, using those laws and the mathematics of probability then one could suggest which outcome is most probable from the chemistry and physics alone. There is a reason why life as we understand it did not exist immediately, it was an improbable event. The maths suggests it requires an extra planetary organic input to be possible at all, that’s why NASA is busy probing around the solar system for evidence of what that input may have been.
@@revermightstar8004 just so happens that our DNA encodes for proteins that result in us being more ape like than protozoan like, just in evolutionary terms. However, when one looks at the protozoan cell and the human cell, there are very little differences. The essence is solely the preservation of the genetic code, the entirety of our (and protozoan) processes in terms of stimuli and response are dedicated to the same outcome. The ape seems to have an ability to detect more patterns in our environment than the protozoan and humans can detect more patterns than apes. It’s that pattern recognition that we classify as intelligence and gives us a competitive advantage in preserving our genetic code.
Imagine getting THIS CLOSE to realizing nihilism is most-fueled by the fiscal stratification caused by capitalism and blaming it on Narcissistic Personality Disorder instead.
I knew this was trash when the Description discussed looking to the past for answers. That’s some smoothbrain Conservative thinking.
perfect example of resentful narcissism here
1. "Nihilism is fuelled by fiscal stratification of capitalism" - what an absurd, uninformed statement
2. Vervaeke doesn't argue for going back into the past. If you knew anything about him you'd know that his mantra is literally "neither nostalgia nor utopia". He argues for a revivifying of ancient wisdom traditions and making them appropriate and applicable to our post-modern predicament in the form of an ecology of practices. Literally nothing about this is "conservative" in any sense that you're conceiving of it, fool.
The past is an incredibly useful resource. Why? It's filled with experiments that others have performed for us. To deny this is worse than to be deracinated, it's against the scientific process or, at best, conspiratorial.
"Fiscal stratification caused by capitalism" ..... so humans have nothing to do with it? It just, kind of, happens..... capitalism, like an abstract cloud, descends on societies? If humans however have some part to play, maybe it is good to understand the psychological tendencies that dictates human behaviour. You must be quite young if you believe that abstractions are reality.....
@@kbeetles Of course they must be young to characterize things in this way. "Fiscal stratification caused by capitalism" seems to be some kind of evil demon that appears out of nowhere and sets about causing chaos and disaster according to these people 🙄🤦♂️
Vervaeke has no idea what he's talking about.
refuses to elaborate, leaves
@@ubertrashcat very typical, probably got Cs in school and gets drunk on wine made from sour grapes
Knock off Jordan Peterson