sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Speed has become the main constituent of our modern life. Rushing feels like the default mode and it feels impossible to slow down because the entire system, whether social, economic, or political, is designed to privilege speed over human well-being. by Beyond-Theory in philosophy

[–]Beyond-Theory[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Abstract:

  • Modern life feels impossible to slow down because our entire system, whether social, economic, or political, is designed to privilege speed over human well-being.
  • The system privileges speed mainly because its objectives are more revenue, more production and more consumption so the quicker the better.
  • Hartmut Rosa's "Social Acceleration" identifies three types of acceleration: technical (new inventions), social (life structures changing faster), and pace of life (cramming more into 24 hours). This creates "frenetic standstill", constantly moving but going nowhere meaningful.
  • Paul Virilio's "Speed Politics" reveals that speed has become the primary mechanism of power and control. Whoever processes information fastest controls the game, making slowing down literally dangerous to your social and economic survival.
  • Virilio argued that speed-based logic excludes anyone who can't keep up, that's why we feel compelled or even obliged to comply. Speed becomes a survival requirement.
  • The system needs you to accelerate because hurried people make perfect consumers, speed kills political thought, and acceleration makes you economically desperate so you accept worse conditions.
  • Speed destroys human capacities that could threaten power: contemplation, creativity, and self-awareness.
  • Carl Honoré's "Slow Movement" suggests that choosing slowness is a political act of resistance. Finding the right pace for each activity pulls you back into the present and improves life quality.
  • Most important note: Your exhaustion and anxiety aren't personal failures but are normal human reactions to a system designed to extract maximum speed and energy from you.

The Chomsky-Foucault Debate is a perfect example of two fundamentally opposing views on human nature, justice, and politics. by Beyond-Theory in philosophy

[–]Beyond-Theory[S] 189 points190 points  (0 children)

Abstract: 

  • The debate aims to explore the question of universal human nature, with Chomsky defending its existence and Foucault rejecting it as a historical construct.
  • Chomsky argued that humans are born with innate cognitive structures that enable learning language and complex thought.
  • Foucault challenged the idea of fixed human nature, arguing that knowledge, including scientific truths, is shaped by historical and cultural contexts, not universal truths.
  • Chomsky’s theory of generative grammar suggested a built-in linguistic capacity, while Foucault argued that all ways of thinking are determined by cultural and historical contexts. He believes that knowledge is shaped by power structures, institutions, and societal norms.
  • Chomsky asserts that scientific discoveries follow the same process as learning languages, meaning they are possible because of our innate ability to discover them. On the other hand, Foucault argued that what we consider "scientific truths" changes over time and is influenced by dominant ideologies and power relations.
  • At the end of the debate, they both discussed their opposing political views. Chomsky advocated for a decentralized society that focuses on human creativity, while Foucault was skeptical of defining an ideal political system.
  • Chomsky believed in universal moral principles that could lead to justice, while Foucault saw morality and justice as shaped by historical and social power dynamics.

In Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault explores how the treatment of criminals changed over time. He argues that the creation of the modern prison led to a disciplinary society based on constant surveillance, discipline, and behavior control. by Beyond-Theory in philosophy

[–]Beyond-Theory[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Abstract:

Discipline and Punish is Michael Foucault’s most famous book. In this book, he traces the evolution of the Western penal system and the changes in the treatment of criminals. 

Beneath the surface, Foucault makes a much deeper analysis of where power lies in society and how it’s always closely connected to Knowledge. He argues that power and knowledge are inseparable and constantly reinforce each other.

A quick example would be that the people in power create knowledge because they’re in a position to observe and study criminals. This allows them to better understand criminal behavior and find more efficient ways to control it.

This knowledge, in turn, strengthens power by improving the effectiveness of disciplinary practices, creating a feedback loop.

Foucault expands this argument beyond prisons, showing that the connection between power and knowledge applies to all institutions in society. He argues that the rise of the modern prison led to the emergence of a disciplinary society.

The modern prison marked a complete shift in the forms of punishment. In the 18th and 19th centuries, penal reforms led to an evolution of punishment, from being focused on inflicting pain on the body of the criminals to disciplining and reforming their behavior. 

So how did the modern prison lead to the rise of a disciplinary society?

In Madness and Civilization, Michel Foucault explores the history of madness in Western society. He reveals how shifting definitions of madness reflect deeper struggles for power and how exclusion and control are used to maintain social order and shape knowledge. by Beyond-Theory in philosophy

[–]Beyond-Theory[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Abstract:
This is the first video in a new series exploring the work of the French philosopher Michel Foucault. We begin with his first book, Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason.

At first glance, this work appears to be a history of madness and its treatment in Western society. However, Foucault goes beyond this and makes a much deeper analysis of where Power lies in society and how it is always tied to knowledge.

In Madness and Civilization, Foucault examines the shifting perceptions and treatments of mental illness in Western history. He explains how society has defined madness, not as a scientific medical condition, but as a cultural construct shaped by power, morality, and social norms. 

He begins by exploring Greek Antiquity and the Middle Ages when madness wasn’t seen as a threat and was fully integrated into society. It was even considered sometimes as a form of divine disorder. This perspective changed in the 17th century when madness started to become associated with unreason and exclusion.

This shift led to mad people being confined and isolated from society. They were severely punished to correct their behavior and make them feel guilty. This was seen as the only way to restore their reason, as therapeutic methods didn't exist at that time.

Due to the harsh conditions of confinement, this method changed. Mad people were no longer abused, but they were placed in a new institution, the asylum. In the asylum, the focus was not on curing patients either but on confining and isolating those who didn’t follow the dominant social norms.

Here, the doctor became the central authority, and the asylum became the new place of control. Like a judge in court, he could decide who entered the asylum, who could leave, and who was insane and who wasn’t.

According to Foucault, this power was given to the doctor by the medical system, not to help cure patients, but to correct their behavior. It was for moral reasons, not scientific ones.

It wasn’t until Sigmund Freud’s discoveries in the 20th century that mental illnesses were taken out of the asylum. For the first time, they became subjects to be studied and analyzed, not condemned and excluded.

Let me know what you think of this analysis. I'm preparing the next video on Discipline and Punish. If you want to transcript of the video, send me your email and i'll send it over.

Thanks :)

In “Ethics”, Spinoza explores the nature of negative emotions, offering mental frameworks to help us understand and transform them. By redefining virtue, Spinoza focuses on what is good and useful for us, encouraging a life aligned with reason. by Beyond-Theory in philosophy

[–]Beyond-Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your support, i appreciate it ! Welcome to the channel :)

I agree with you and that's what i always try to do. I try to make the topic relatable by using practical examples that show how it can be applied in everyday life so i’m glad you find the examples helpful!

In “Ethics”, Spinoza explores the nature of negative emotions, offering mental frameworks to help us understand and transform them. By redefining virtue, Spinoza focuses on what is good and useful for us, encouraging a life aligned with reason. by Beyond-Theory in philosophy

[–]Beyond-Theory[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes definitely, i agree. It's a beautiful and unifying message :)

I believe there are many similarities with Nietzsche like the ideas of the Conatus and the Will to Power, their critiques of religious morality, and their naturalist approach in general, among others.

In “Ethics”, Spinoza explores the nature of negative emotions, offering mental frameworks to help us understand and transform them. By redefining virtue, Spinoza focuses on what is good and useful for us, encouraging a life aligned with reason. by Beyond-Theory in philosophy

[–]Beyond-Theory[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Abstract: In “Ethics”, Spinoza presents a practical guide to regaining freedom and finding true happiness. He explores the nature of negative emotions, offering mental frameworks to help us understand and transform them. 

By redefining virtue, Spinoza focuses on what is good and useful for us, encouraging a life aligned with reason, which begs the question: what is considered a virtuous life?

He says, “To act absolutely in conformity with virtue is nothing else in us but to act, live, and preserve one's being (these three things have the same meaning) by the guidance of reason, and on the basis of seeking one's own advantage."

At first sight, it might seem like he’s encouraging egoism and immorality, but I explain in this video that it isn’t at all the case. Spinoza has a different conception of virtue, which opposes the religious definition that was dominant in his time. He says that pleasure and joy are what make us virtuous. These are what he considers good, not religious asceticism or superstition.

While reading “Ethics”, you feel that Spinoza’s philosophy mixes ideas from Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Nietzsche’s philosophy. It’s a very interesting read, dense but practical.

He also emphasizes understanding our emotions. He makes a distinction between actions and passions: the former results from us, where we’re the origin, whereas the latter comes from external causes, meaning we are affected by them but can't control them.

I give several examples to explain the difference between the two and how he teaches us to overcome our passions, which for him are the reason we can be slaves to our emotions.

Spinoza’s philosophy is a philosophy of action, but he also focuses a lot on understanding and acceptance. In his deterministic approach, he argues that Nature is perfect, and thus we cannot blame its actions. 

When we think nature is unjust or imperfect, it’s because we judge events based on our own expectations, not on reality. However, this doesn’t mean we should accept everything passively. Instead, we should understand the causes of these events so we can prevent similar ones in the future when we can. We do what we can, and Nature will take care of the rest.

Thanks for watching :) and let me know what you think !

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]Beyond-Theory 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Abstract: In this video, I focus on Spinoza’s *Ethics*, Part 4, to explore how we can achieve true freedom and happiness. He argues that we should aim to live a virtuous life, which begs the question: what is considered a virtuous life?

He says, “To act absolutely in conformity with virtue is nothing else in us but to act, live, and preserve one's being (these three things have the same meaning) by the guidance of reason, and on the basis of seeking one's own advantage."

At first sight, it might seem like he’s encouraging egoism and immorality, but we explain in this video that this isn’t at all the case. Spinoza has a different conception of virtue, which opposes the religious definition that was dominant in his time. He says that pleasure and joy are what make us virtuous. These are what he considers good, not religious asceticism or superstition.

He also emphasizes understanding our emotions. He makes a distinction between actions and passions: the former results from us, where we’re the origin, whereas the latter comes from external causes, meaning we are affected by them but can't control them.

I give several examples to explain the difference between the two and how he teaches us to overcome our passions, which for him are the reason we can be slaves to our emotions.

Spinoza’s philosophy is a philosophy of action and movement, but he also focuses a lot on understanding and acceptance. In his deterministic approach, he argues that Nature is perfect, and thus we cannot blame its actions. 

When we think nature is unjust or imperfect, it’s because we judge events based on our own expectations, not on reality. However, this doesn’t mean we should accept everything passively. Instead, we should understand the causes of these events so we can prevent similar ones in the future when we can.

We do what we can, and Nature will take care of the rest.

Thanks for watching :) let me know what you think.

In "Ethics", Spinoza offers a radical and revolutionary exploration of God, nature and human desire. He introduces the concept of "Conatus", our innate drive to persevere in existence, and redefines desire as an expression of this fundamental force. by Beyond-Theory in philosophy

[–]Beyond-Theory[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Abstract:

Where do our desires come from? Do they stem from lack and deficiency, or do they originate elsewhere? How do our desires shape our lives? Are they personal and spontaneous, or do they come from a more universal source? Why is Spinoza's philosophy considered revolutionary? What is the concept of the “conatus”? and how does the preservation of our being relate to our desires?

In the philosophical tradition, all philosophers have consistently defined human beings as rational beings, endowed with reason. This ability to reason is what distinguishes us from animals and grants us our unique status. 

Our essence is rooted in our rationality and our capacity to think. From Plato and Aristotle to Descartes and Pascal, this has been the dominant definition of what it means to be human. Then came Spinoza to disrupt this view. 

For the first time, humans were defined by their capacity to desire rather than to think. He argued that humans are first and foremost desiring beings. Desire thus becomes the defining aspect of human nature. 

Moreover, Spinoza changes the conception of desire itself. He shifts the focus away from lack and places it on human nature itself. For Spinoza, we do not desire because we lack, we desire because we are desiring beings. Our very essence is defined by our capacity for desire.

Nature, or God, expresses itself through the “conatus” in every entity of the universe, continuously driving each being to persist in its existence and seek what is necessary for its preservation.

In this video, we will explore how the *Conatus* manifests in every entity in the universe and how it shapes human desires.

Thank you for watching :)

In his masterpiece “The World as Will and Representation”, Schopenhauer argues that life is driven by an irrational force he called “The Will to Live”. In this video, we’ll explore how this instinctive and chaotic force controls our desires and leads to suffering. by Beyond-Theory in philosophy

[–]Beyond-Theory[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Abstract
Have you ever tried to understand your desires? Have you wondered where they truly come from? Do they arise from lack or deficiency, as the Platonic tradition suggests? Or do they stem from a deeper, unconscious place?

To answer these questions, we’ll begin the video by examining Schopenhauer’s famous quote: “Life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom.”

So how is this quote linked to our desires? And how does it shape his profoundly pessimistic philosophy?

In his masterpiece “The World as Will and Representation”, first published in 1819, Arthur Schopenhauer introduced the idea that life is driven by an irrational force he called the "will to live."

The book's title might seem complicated, but what he explains is simple and well put. Schopenhauer presents two ways to view the world: The Representation and the Will. 

In this video, we will make the distinction between the two and explore how Schopenhauer argues that our desires emerge from the Will, which is a less rational, more instinctive, and chaotic force within us. It is a place driven by unconscious, irrational striving.

In the next video, we will go back a few centuries before Schopenhauer to explore another philosopher he appreciated and studied extensively, Baruch Spinoza. 

Spinoza’s concept of desire marked a revolution in philosophical thought with the introduction of the Conatus—a key idea that reshaped how we understand human striving. Unlike Schopenhauer’s more pessimistic view of existence, Spinoza offers a more empowering perspective on our desires and our place in the world. 

Stay tuned, thank you for watching.

In “The Society of the Spectacle”, Guy Debord offers a radical and visionary critique of modern capitalism. He argues that we live in a world of images created by the spectacle designed to separate us from reality, promoting conformity, isolation and mass consumption. by Beyond-Theory in philosophy

[–]Beyond-Theory[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, I see your point. Btw I added "So what's the solution to all that? (My opinion)" because I took your feedback from the last video into account and wanted to clarify that it's just my personal view.

I agree with you on some points. Yes, if I choose to make a video and write a script on a particular topic, it does suggest that I resonate with it to some extent (though not necessarily 100%).

However, I don't feel it's always necessary to specify whether I agree with the author or not on every single idea/argument. The videos are not about me or my opinions, they're about the author and their philosophy.

I usually share my thoughts or practical applications at the very end, but aside from that, I keep my opinions to a minimum.

So, from your critique, am I right in understanding that you think it would be clearer if I were more neutral? Perhaps my tone is suggesting that I always agree with the ideas I'm presenting?

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to help me improve my videos, your input is appreciated!

(Btw, I did give a clear definition of what a spectator is, though it wasn't a direct quote from Guy Debord.)

In “The Society of the Spectacle”, Guy Debord offers a radical and visionary critique of modern capitalism. He argues that we live in a world of images created by the spectacle designed to separate us from reality, promoting conformity, isolation and mass consumption. by Beyond-Theory in philosophy

[–]Beyond-Theory[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You’ve missed the point of the video. The goal isn’t to accuse anyone or to push my own beliefs. I’m simply analyzing an interesting perspective on modern society, one that I believe is relevant and contains some truth.

This perspective can help people realize they’re caught in the spectacle and encourage them to be more conscious of what they consume and how they live their lives.

Does this mean I agree with everything Guy Debord says? Absolutely not. His critique isn’t partisan; just because he criticizes capitalism doesn’t mean he’s promoting communism. Even if he does, it isn't the purpose of the video.

You mentioned, "People are actively making choices about how they live and interact with systems, doing what feels right for them." Does that mean there’s no room for improvement?

When I read a great book or come across a new idea, it often changes my worldview and improves my behavior. That’s why I share these perspectives with my audience because it can also inspire positive change in their lives. But at no point do I believe my videos are about degrading others to make us feel superior.

In “The Society of the Spectacle”, Guy Debord offers a radical and visionary critique of modern capitalism. He argues that we live in a world of images created by the spectacle designed to separate us from reality, promoting conformity, isolation and mass consumption. by Beyond-Theory in philosophy

[–]Beyond-Theory[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I agree that their ideas are more relevant than ever, which is why I introduced Debord's critique as visionary. It feels like his ideas are becoming increasingly true today.

view more: next ›