What's the meaning of life? The ultimate philosophical answers

0:00 [Music] Hey everyone, thank you for joining me. What is the meaning of life? This is perhaps the single most difficult question that every human being faces at some point in their life. Since the dawn of humanity, humans have wondered, why am I here? Where have I come from? And what does it mean to be alive? And what is my purpose in life? Since there was no rational answer throughout history, humans resorted to religious faith to satisfy this existential dilemma. God was the answer. But modernity came along to question the existence of God. So now it was left to philosophers to come up with a rational answer to the meaning of life. In this video, I'll attempt to

0:46 give you one of the most comprehensive philosophical answer to the question, what is the meaning of life from a more secular non-religious perspective. Most of these philosophers were atheists except one. So the big question is does philosophy have an answer or is philosophy dead wrong about the meaning of life? First we start with Schopenhau the father of atheism and pessimism. Inspired by Hinduism, Schopenhau's philosophy centers on will to life. We are driven by a blind will to continue life and suffer. But why and how? Second, Saurin Kirkagard starts off from a non-religious perspective, but his quest ends in God. In other words, he thinks there cannot be meaning without

1:32 God. But why? I included him because he is often considered the father of existentialism and had great influence on future philosophers. Third, N said, "God is dead and rationality is too boring." So he places the meaning of life in his doctrine of will to power. In other words, we're not driven to continue life, but rather to achieve immortality through greatness. But how can we do that? Fourth, Carl Jung's theory of the unconscious is very important to understand the meaning of life. We are born pre-assembled with a software or cultural artifacts called archetypes that help us navigate life. But how does the unconscious influence the conscious

2:19 mind? Fifth, JP Sat existential philosophy claims there is no essence prior to existence. We are born as empty slate and it's up to us to paint a meaning on it. But how do we define our own existence? This section is perhaps the longest which is ironic. The philosophy of emptiness has the most things to say or it makes sense. When something is empty, you need more stuff to fill it. And finally, Albert Kamu's philosophy of absurdism states that there is no meaning in life, so no point searching for one. Instead, focus on something else which he calls the will to joy. At the end, I'll tell you which of these philosophers is closest to my

3:05 way of thinking. I hope you enjoy this video. It's a long one. So, please get yourself a strong cup of coffee and let's talk about what the meaning of life is or is there a meaning at [Music] all? What drives us to get out of bed every morning? What motivates us to go on living? What is behind the human will that is pushing us forward, achieve great things, do stupid things? European philosophy had somewhat two contradictory answers. Some explained human motivation as God-given. Since God has created us, he's also installed a free will inside us to achieve things in life through the character stick of heaven and hell. But since the 15th

3:50 century, science started to challenge the religious doctrines for being too simplistic. So European philosophers offered an alternative answer, rationality. Since we are rational beings, we first think and then act to push things forward. So generally the two answers for our motivation to act was explained through God or rationality. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhau however rejected both God and reason as motivator of human action. So he offered an alternative to both religion and rationality nature. He argued that we are driven to live because there is a mysterious force inside us bestowed upon us by the universe itself. a unified

4:35 force that unites all humans, animals, and even objects. We have little or no control over this mysterious force. Yet, they were all bound by it. So, our rational conscious mind is just the tip of the iceberg. While many philosophers ignored Schopenhauer, he had a profound influence on artists, musicians, novelists, but most significantly psychoanalysts such as Sigman Freud and Carl Jung. Now I'll discuss Schopenhau's philosophy. Schopenhau's most important philosophical work is the world as will and representation published in 1819 some 200 years ago. In it he outlined his main philosophical outlook. But to

5:20 set the scene, let's talk about another German giant. As was the case with most German philosophers of his age, he had to respond to Emanuel Kand who revolutionized Western philosophy by reconciling two divergent schools of philosophy, rationalism and empiricism. Rationalists say we have innate knowledge of the world that unfolds itself as we develop in life from birth to adulthood. But empiricists argue everything we know about the world comes from outside through our senses. Kant brought them together saying that it is a bit of both. Humans have innate rational faculty that makes sense of the world by putting a structure to it. Without our mental structure, our knowledge of the world would be chaotic and disorganized. So we cannot make sense of it. So Kant made the human lens

6:08 central to understanding of the world. In other words, Kant argued that we humans are not passive receivers of knowledge from outside world but we also impose our mental structure to the world. Kant also divided reality into two distinctive realms. Phenomena which is our experience of the world through our five senses of smell, touch, sight, hearing and taste and numina which is the world in itself which we cannot know. We can see a mountain but we can never fully cross what it feels like to be a mountain. So for Kant phenomena is our way of knowing the world and numina is the world in itself which is hidden from us. Schopenhau took Kant's distinction between the knowable world of phenomena and the unknowable world of

6:54 numina to develop his own theory of will and representation. For Kant the empirical world we experience is only the appearance of the numina. But the numin itself we cannot fully know. For Kant, it made sense since he believed in God who imparted humans with rationality, a kind of window to organize the world and give it a structure. Although Kant is not considered a Christian philosopher, his world view was from that of a western Christian tradition of seeing humans somewhat separate from the world, almost godlike creatures of God exiled from the Garden of Eden. Of course, Kant was a rationalist, but rationalism as a philosophical tradition has its origin in ancient Greece, but it has been closely aligned with Christian view of reality that God has given us our

7:39 rational faculty. Schopenhau was not religious. So his argument is not based on us humans being separate from the world but very much part of the world. In fact, we are the world that is ruled by the same will. In other words, all living beings and even non-living beings come preassembled or pre-installed with this blind will since built in inside each being we cannot fully know. Schopenhau was not religious. So his argument is not based on us humans being separate from the world but being very much part of the world. Schopenhau argued that there's no distinction between two worlds of phenomena and numina. They are one and the same thing or two sides of the same coin. It is will. It's the driving force in the

8:25 universe. But we only see its representation, not the actual will. Thus, it may appear as though there's a distinction between our experience and the objective world. But in reality, there's no distinction between the objective world and a subject who experiences it. For example, when I talk, I can also hear myself. Or when I walk, I can also see my legs moving, but I also feel what it's like to walk. In other words, the experience is both external legs movement, but also internal. The feeling or intuition I get from my legs moving. Schopenhau argues that they are both one. He calls it will, but it's hidden from us. We can only see its manifestation or shadow as the philosophy of Plato. Schopenhau's

9:12 idea of the hidden wheel is somewhat similar to Plato's theory of ideal form and the shadow. For Schopenhau, there's no such thing as outside or inside world. It's one and the same thing. We might think anything outside our skin is separate from us. But Schopenhau says as soon as your skin touches an object, it is no longer outside experience. So for Schopenhau to think that we are separate from the universe is a mistake. We are one in the same thing. To explain Schopenhau's will, let's talk about love. If you ask someone why you got married, they might say it's because they fell in love. But for Schopenhau, it's a surface level representation of something entirely different. It's the will to life. We're driven by the urge to procreate. And love is just a convenient surface level

9:58 representation of the sexual urge to procreate. For Schopenhau, will is the blind driving force in the universe that motivates us to have sex. And representation is our perception of that blind will which we call love. So the will to life is our passion for life that we share with all living beings including animals and plants. Since the will is blind and universal, we each become its eye through which it looks out to the world. For example, in humans, the will uses each individual to find the opposite sex to make babies. Love is nothing but the representation of our biological urge to procreate. If you go about sex in a rational manner and consider the consequence of having a child, the cost, the time, effort, and a lifetime of constant worry about the

10:44 children that result from sex and the anguish about their health, we would not have sex. The cost of sex for women is higher due to 9 months pregnancy and childbirth. While this makes them more cautious and selective than men, it still doesn't stop them from having sex. For men, however, there's no physiological cost to having sex. The urge is so extremely strong that men work hard and even put their lives in danger to acquire resources, status, power, fame and everything in order to have access to more women. So everything we do in life, acquiring wealth, status, makeup, fashion, fitness, plastic surgery, etc., we ultimately do to attract a made to procreate with. The best time we can have a rational mental

11:30 clarity is right after sex when the sexual goggles are off, which is similar to beer goggles. A great example of Schopenhau's pessimistic outlook on love is depicted in one of the most beautiful novels of the 20th century, Marcel P's in search of lost time, which I have discussed here a lot. The novel's depiction of love as ultimately a disappointing experience when on the one hand boredom or on the other hand jealousy seeps in to ruin things for the lovers. Perhaps a crude metaphor for will is a gigantic iceberg while our human consciousness or perception of it is only the tip of that iceberg which became a metaphor for the psychoanalysis of the unconscious mind. Schopenhauer

12:16 says it's impossible to know the will because as soon as you observe it, it becomes representation of that will. It's like quantum mechanics. Your observation of a particle changes the position of particle. So it's a kind of catch 22. To understand Schopenhau's idea of the will is to imagine everything in the universe is one thing. Let's say a single atom that oscillates between everything that exists. For Schopenhauer, we are sandwiched between a rock, the irrational chaotic will, and a hard place, our rational desire for order. On an intellectual level, we want order, happiness, fulfillment, etc. But on a deeper level, our innate blind will to life is illogical, chaotic, directionless, and endlessly striving.

13:04 This causes us suffering. Our intellect seeks order, but the blind will doesn't obey order. On an instinctual level, we want sex, food, company almost endlessly. But in reality, we cannot fulfill those desires all the time. So our rational mind tries to tame or put a limit on those things. But the blind will is insatiable. As a result, we're constantly crushed between a rock and a hard place. So ultimately, when it comes to this will, we are not free. But the will itself is free. If it doesn't achieve its goal through us, it's happy to destroy us and go through someone else. We want to tame it, but our attempt often makes us frustrated. In other words, we can act freely, but we cannot will freely as Albert Einstein

13:52 said. For example, we cannot eliminate our innate sexual drive, which is the biggest cause of suffering for men. We can temporarily satisfy it, but we can never eliminate it. Schopenhauer says since we have a body we are all at the mercy of this blind will that urges us to do things. To fully understand Schopenhau's will it's important to discuss the Buddhist idea of the self because it was massively impressed by Buddhism. He says quote if I wish to take the results of my philosophy as the standard of the truth I should have to concede to Buddhism preeminence over the others. According to Buddhism, the thing we call the self or eye is nothing but an illusion or mirage. For the Buddhists, consciousness is universal. But the self is a mere mirage we acquire

14:38 in our lifetime. In other words, our essence is not the self we call me or I. Our essence is consciousness. The self is a fake identity or ego we create around that consciousness. Once we feed this ego, it becomes insatiable with desires to have things like money, power, fame and food and sex. So this self or ego becomes the main source of our suffering in life. We suffer because our ego wants things and never satisfied. In Buddhism they practice nonattachment to reduce suffering. We want shiny toys but we have to suffer to get them but once we get them we want newer or shinier toys. This never stops. So Buddhists practice discipline by

15:24 refusing to obey the blind will or inner desires. But in Buddhism, it goes even deeper which is called the negation of the self. In other words, you get rid of the thing you call the self, an impostor who's making you do things, chase money, sex, drugs, and food. Chopenhau has a similar solution. The only way out of suffering is the negation of the self. When you become one with the universe because in the deeper reality there is no self as me and you but one universal will. We individuals are merely its eyes that it glances to the world. Also sincehower believed in a single universal will manifested in us all. He saw compassion as the recognition of this blind will. The word compassion

16:11 literally means passion with. While passion is considered irrational when it becomes compassion. It's just manifestation of this universal will. So recognizing the blind will is one way to understand compassion. Schopenhau's compassion is different from the conventional morality. For example, a lion eating a gazelle may seem awfully cruel, but Schopenhau says they both obey the same blind will. We humans judge things through the lens of pleasure. And anything that reduces pleasure is considered suffering, therefore immoral. But the blind will doesn't see things through the individual lens. The only way to cope with this suffering is through the intellect and art which allow us to move to a state of non-existence like the

16:56 Buddhist nirvana. Artists while creating art as well as us while enjoying that work of art experience a moment of non-being while in awe of its beauty. When an art takes our breath away, we truly experience non-existence. a kind of blissful moment. Schopenhau influenced the German composer Richard Vagner whose music represents Schopenhau's volatile and oscillating blind will. For Schopenhau, music didn't represent the phenomenal world. Therefore, it was free from the will and urges and instead it fostered compassion. When we experience beauty, artistic or otherwise, we move beyond the distinction between will and representation or subject and object. He

17:42 says, quote, "It is as if the object alone existed without anyone perceiving it, and one can thus no longer separate the perceiver from the perception, but the two have become one. The entirety of consciousness entirely filled and occupied by a single perceptual image. Experiencing artistic beauty liberates us from the blind will. So we become pure, willless, painless, timeless, subject of cognition. You enter a world of ideas, not worried about the physical world of matter. You are so mesmerized by the object of beauty that everything else becomes irrelevant to you. For Schopenhauer, music represented the purest of all artistic forms because music is

18:28 timeless, universal, and understood by everyone and everywhere. Even the ancient Greeks saw music and mathematics coming from the same source, nature. To understand Schopenhau, let me discuss Hegel. Between the two, Hegel has been far more influential in the last two centuries through the works of Marx in particular. But Schopenhau's influence has been more in the realm of psychology and evolutionary biology. Hegel was a German idealist whose philosophy was centered on the idea of progressive historical process. He believed we are the product of history. In other words, we think or behave the way we do because we are born and brought up in a period of history. An ancient Greek and a modern German are

19:15 vastly different and they're thinking and behaving simply because they lived in different historical periods. In other words, time makes us and history shapes us. History is a continuous progression of time. Shopenhau thought there was something far deeper than time. Time is just the surface level veil and beneath is chaos, aimlessness, all ruled by the blind will. Hegel says we build upon those who came before us. All the while things are progressing and improving. His dialectical process was when two opposites thesis and antithesis come together to make something new called synthesis which is an improvement on the previous things. Schopenhau on the other hand says we have the illusion of seeing things improve because we

20:01 don't see the blind will. The will has no destination or a perfectionist utopia in mind. It's aimless, restless and eternal. a pendulum that oscillates forever, but always stuck between wanting more and quickly getting bored of them after you get them. It's like kids wanting new toys, but as soon as they get the set toy, they are bored of them. The same with shopping, drugs, food, sex, etc. While Hegel is correct that an ancient Greek child may have craved a different toy to a modern German child, but the wanting of the toy and the getting bored of that toys is still the same. So, Schopenhau says historical progress means nothing to our insatiable desires and urges. Hegel

20:48 believed in Aristotilian or progress of history that is moving towards the betterment of the human race. For instance, progress means more freedom, more food, more comfort, and more equality. But for Schopenhau, history, culture, progress are all an illusion or surface level as in Maya and Hinduism. And beneath is chaos, aimlessness, and terrifying will. Since the will is aimless, it makes no sense to talk about progress. You could say Hegel's progressive philosophy is somewhat similar to a Christian view of us heading towards heaven which marks took and turned it into a common state of the future in which everyone lives happily and equally. Schopenhau might say that's nothing but a pipe dream

21:33 because we are ruled by the blind will inside us. No matter how beautiful the outside world becomes, you cannot change human nature. That's why Schopenhau is called a philosopher of pessimism. Hegel has an optimistic outlook on history that things are getting better as we travel into the future. But Schuben thinks in the grand scheme of things progress is just an illusion. The ancient Greeks suffered as much as the modern man does despite their societies being vastly different because on an innate level we are stuck between a rock that is the blind will urging us to chase sex, food, power and more and a hard place that those things are not always available and even if they are

22:19 available we soon get bored and want something else. To give an example we get addicted to food, drugs, shopping, social media etc. just to quench the thirst that that blind will has bestowed on us. Even in a future utopia, we will still seek the objects of our desire and get bored of them soon enough. So Hegel was an optimist, albeit slightly utopian. Schopenhauer, however, was a realist. Hegel thought humans were becoming better, while Schopenhau thought the hardware changes, but the wiring remains the same. Now the question is is Schopenhau's pessimism a good thing in a modern society. In physics the second law of

23:05 thermodynamics is entropy. Meaning that everything is moving towards chaos. In other words, the universe is moving towards disorder. To put simply, it's easier to destroy than build. It's easier to cause pain and suffering than pleasure and joy. Our conscious mind is more alert to pain than pleasure. According Schopenhau, the pain of losing something or someone is far greater than the joy of winning something or someone. In other words, as we age, we become more and more cautious and careful. Despite having a good chunk of inheritance, Schopenhau was never fully confident in his income. Why? Because he says pain is infinite and joy is finite. Our human mind is wired to avoid pain at all costs. This has become the basis of

23:52 our rationality. Rationality is our way of minimizing pain. So our mind is burned more by negative experiences that positive ones. Past traumas often prevent us from future joys. Schopenhau also says we're not here to be happy but to procreate and continue life. So understanding the blind will Chopenhau says allows us to lower our expectations. Today the modern humans have an insatiable desire for happiness that almost everything we do is tied to our goal for happiness. For Schopenhau happiness is nothing but an illusion for striving, struggling and oscillating between desire and the wall. Just as love is an illusion for sex, happiness is an illusion for attempt to escape the

24:38 will by satisfying its insatiable desires. For example, in order to feed a fire, we have to throw more wood in it. So, Schopenhau's pessimism allows us to lower our expectations. The biggest enemy of happiness is having a high expectation which is constantly crushed by reality. Schopenhauer brings us back to the reality of life that is full of irrationality, suffering, pain, and restlessness. Understanding reality might sound pessimistic, but it helps us manage our expectation. So, it can ultimately help us become more content with the harsh reality of life. Life is not about happiness, comfort, or blissful order. It's about chaos, disorder, discomfort, and suffering. Author Schopenhauard

25:25 dedicated his life to philosophy in an attempt to find a non-religious explanation of life. He finally settled on a simple idea. We're driven by a blind will to continue life. He was thinking about our evolutionary drive some 40 years before Darwin articulated in his theory of evolution being at the heart of life on Earth. So, we're just tools in the hands of nature and evolution. [Music] Saurin Kagot is considered the first existentialist philosopher. But who was he? How did he use literature to revolutionize philosophy and become the father of existentialism? And why did he say that freedom causes anxiety? And what was his answer to the existential

26:16 angst? Either or is considered Surin Kagard's most important philosophical work published in 1843 under the pseudonyame of Victor Aramita which in Latin means victorious hermit. Kirkagard wrote the book while on a visit to Germany where he got to know some of the key philosophical and artistic figures of the time. In the book, Kirkagard responds to two German giants, Emanuel Kant and George Hegel. He saw Kantan philosophy a bit too rigidly rational that leaves little or no space for the individual to define himself. Kant's universalistic philosophy lacked a bit of individuality. The same is true about Hegel's historical philosophy that we

27:02 are by and large shaped by history or dialectical process which can seem quite deterministic which later became the basis of Mark's historical determinism. So both Kant and Hegel left little or no room for the individual to define himself or herself. So, Kirkagard took things from an individualistic point of view and thus considered the father of existentialism that our life's purpose is not predetermined and it's up to us to define it for ourselves. In other words, we all have choices to make in life that ultimately decides the path we walk on. In this book, Kirkagard goes to the heart of existence and ask this simple question, what is the purpose of it all? He sees two often contradictory

27:49 answers. On the one hand, we live to have fun and enjoy pleasures life offers, including artistic beauty. But on the other hand, the other purpose of life is to live ethically and be a good person. So the choice we have is either to indulge in pleasures for ourselves or be good to others. While it's impossible to balance the two, however, in reality, one always takes over. Living a hidden life of indulgence be it sex, shopping, alcohol etc. is often the easier option at is the human animal desires those things without effort and even an aesthetic life of enjoying beauty is given to us by nature while living an ethical life needs a lot of discipline

28:35 and commitment. So Kagot asks which gives the ultimate fulfillment in life what comes easy and what comes hard. The two lifestyles are written by two separate fictional authors. The hedenistic artistic life is narrated through literary devices such as metaphors, lyrical pros and is full of imagery. This makes Kagod very unique in western philosophy as he uses literary writing and his philosophical books which are supposed to be purely academic and objective. Another philosopher famous for his literary writing is of course the German giant Frederick Niche who combined poetry, lyricism, even fictionalized situations in order to put forward his philosophical ideas. He was similar to Duovski as both put forward

29:21 their philosophical ideas through storytelling and both were deeply psychological in their writings. So while presenting an aesthetic lifestyle, Kugard talks about art forms such as music, theater, free love, beauty in general. However, in the moral lifestyle section, Kagar writes letter discussing social moral responsibility, self-reflection and most importantly love within a marriage. The writing style reflects the fact that an aesthetic lifestyle is based on selfexpression of inner desires while the moral life is in the form of letter as though someone wiser giving you wisdom about the bigger picture. So the artistic lifestyle is somewhat similar to the romanticist such as Lord Byron

30:08 who traveled the world and slept with women without the commitment of a marriage while an ethical life a man commits to one woman. It's important to note that Kigod was deeply conflicted about marriage and monogamy because naturally and biologically men are more prone to polygamy than women are. So he refused to get married to the woman he loved perhaps simply because he couldn't see himself being with one woman for the rest of his life. So for him the ethical thing was not to marry at all. Once you marry you're morally obliged to be monogamous and loyal to one person. So a pure aesthetic lifestyle, the pursuit of pleasure will leave you empty at the end. Also, seeking pleasure is never enough as you have to get higher to experience the high you experienced

30:54 before. No matter how many women you stews and sleep with, the urge never stops. This is depicted in Oscar Wild's novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray, that ends in the destruction of everyone involved. For instance, someone taking drugs often move up the ladder and cranks it up a notch because the same stimuli gets dull over usage. As Chopenhau pointed out, quote, "Life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom." So Kagot says, "The pendulum is always true between pleasure and boredom. You don't want to eat your favorite food forever as you get bored of it soon enough." Here's what Kirkagot says about boredom. Quote, "Boredom rests upon the nothing that interlaces existence. Its dizziness

31:42 is infinite like that which comes from looking into a bottomless abuse." So the natural answer to the emptiness of a pleasure- seeeking lifestyle is to become rational and moral man. While you can enjoy worldly pleasures, but in moderation and most crucially, you're responsible for the other two. Kirkagot makes two points about reducing anxiety of modern life. One is comparison. The reason we experience anxiety is often we compare ourselves to those around us. We compare our looks, our success, our achievements and things we own and things we do not own. This puts us in competition with everyone else. No matter what we achieve, it eats us from

32:28 inside. The second point he makes is that wishing for something is also dangerous. Why? Because we expect something in the future. So while comparing us to others is about the past achievements or the present and wishing is about the future. We wish because we lack something. So this creates expectations and we all know what happens when you expect things. The natural outcome is often disappointing as Pruce showed in his masterpiece in search of lost time that the more one expects certain outcomes the more painful is the disappointment when it doesn't come as you expected. This causes anxiety. Kagot says we live forwards but we understand backwards. Kirkagard also makes a distinction between the moral life being more

33:14 objective which forces us to think about others while the aesthetic lifestyle is more subjective as it's driven by pleasures for me. The real question he asks is this. Are we supposed to enjoy life for ourselves or be concerned with the plight of others? Today I would say most people including myself is far more concerned with their own well-being or pleasures than helping those who need help. Today we have deferred the moral authority to the state, civil society and social institution to help others and we are mostly responsible for our own individual happiness. We see things on the news but we rarely put ourselves in discomfort to do something about the challenges of the world. So Kugot argues that a subjective hedonistic lifestyle

33:59 is when you live for yourself and the objective moral lifestyle is when you live for others. Kagan sees a problem with both if one goes to the extreme. For instance, in an aesthetic lifestyle, an artist is capable of creating a sublime piece of music or art. But an extreme self-indulgence can also destroy you. Throughout history, there are numerous examples of artists who had psychologically troubled lives. A good example is the Dracuse among the musicians in the past 50 years. While they were busy creating sublime music in private, they were numbing the pain through drugs and alcohol. In the moral lifestyle too, an extreme moral man can also become blind in his pursuit of correcting the world to the detriment of

34:45 others. While most wars in the history have been fought for political or economic reasons, but there are also some wars that were fought for the sake of moral or religious principles. Kirkagard is hesitant to offer a real solution to our existential question because he says one must ask the question and find an answer himself or herself. Having said that, he does offer religious faith as an alternative to both aesthetic and moral lifestyle. He argues that faith allows us self-reflection which opens your eyes to what's going on inside us and only then we can truly understand the world. In other words, we must find an answer that is unique to us. This makes Kat unique as he puts the responsibility of

35:31 existential meaning on to us, not other people or leader or the past or religion. It is up to each one of us to find an answer that satisfies us from within. Kagod being a Nordic man grew up in the part of the world that is incredibly cold and hostile. So naturally, people must think long term instead of short-term indulgences. No wonder the Nordic countries were some of the first to embrace technology, rational thinking, and practical solution to life's problems. Do you know what else? Capitalism took a firmer route in the north of Europe because people had to be pragmatic given the cold climate. Today, the northern countries are some of the richest in the world precisely because they prioritize for cold winter rather than lying on a hammock and drinking beer. So Keagod

36:18 sees a pleasure- seeeking lifestyle is mostly about now and here. That's why the romanticists such as Lord Byron and Shel left England and settled in the warmer parts of Europe like Italy or Greece. Even the word romanticism hints to Rome which is way warmer and climactically pleasant than Copenhagen where Kagod was born. So harsh winters make you think long term rather than immediate gratification. Today most of the world lives in such a comfort that we all prioritize immediate gratification more than restraint and discipline. Commitment is seen as necessary today. So for kuga thinking long term and commitment distinguishes an ethical person from a pleasure- seeeking person. So life has presented

37:04 as a choice and it's totally up to us how we plan and execute it. Another way to analyze the book is the struggle of a religious mainly a Christian man to reconcile his natural urges with his religious discipline. Christianity, most religions in general put a strong barrier around us in order to tame our natural animalistic tendencies of seeking pleasures and avoiding pain. While most religions tell you not to have sex until you get married, our natural urge doesn't care about religious morality. Our innate sexual urge pushes us non-stop to seek sexual partner to procreate with. Kirkaga was about 30 when he wrote the book. So he knew what was happening in his pants. While his Christian upbringing pushing

37:50 him to curb his enthusiasm until he was married. Marriage is serious commitment and most men would avoid if they can get away with it and still have a partner unless they find someone who is so beautiful that the only way to lock her down is through marriage. For a Christian man, once you're married, you're no longer free. Kag God gives the authority to God to rescue him from his terrible predicament stacked between nature's urge to spread the seed and social and moral responsibility of being with one woman. Kagot's fiance Rejine Olsen wanted to get commitment from Keagot and he refused it. Today, a lot of men commit but they have secret affairs. But Saur and Kagot chose not to get married at all. He was honest and chose a moral path. I think we are all

38:35 stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to pleasure- seeeking life or a moral life. While Kagot puts hiddenism and artistic creativity into the aesthetic lifestyle, today there's a clear distinction between the two. Pursuing artistic beauty is no longer seen as simple pursuit of pleasure or self-indulgence. Artists, novelists, musicians, and crafts people pursue beauty through creativity, which is not only morally acceptable, but is also highly respected. Great artists have become almost godlike. But the problem is that these artists are small minority people. N who came a few decades later, understood this fact. So he based his philosophy on the minority of artists and philosophers who he thought shouldn't be tamed by morality and

39:22 social conventions. So kugard and either or simply breaks down the choices we all have. We can choose to be self-indulgent but also be content with the consequences. We also have the choice to be morally responsible. In the 1840s this was incredibly novel idea that individuals had the choice in life. Today we take it for granted thanks to philosophers like Kagot who challenged authorities like church to allow us freedom to make choices for ourselves. Published in the same year's either or in 1843, fear and trembling was also written under pseudonym Johannes Dellentio or John the Silent. In this

40:07 book, Kirkagot formulated his main philosophical idea that anxiety stems from our freedom of choice. When faced with the prospect of marriage to regime, Kirkagot had to make choice between commitment to monogamy which comes with responsibility versus freedom to do other things. He chose freedom. But on a deeper level, as humans, we are stuck between the past memories and experiences and future hopes and expectations. This is particularly true of a religious man who wants to end up in heaven. So his preoccupation is not to ruin his future or afterlife by messing things up in here and now. Kirard starts off by arguing that each individual is different in how we perceive reality. Two people seeing the

40:54 same thing might come to two different conclusions. The Buddhist fable of the blind man and an elephant is a good analogy. Each blind man touches different parts of the elephant's body and comes to separate conclusion when it comes to describing the animal. Now the elephant is the same thing yet the observer is different. So the difference doesn't come from outside but from within. So kagard places his philosophy on the individuality and uniqueness of each person. This was revolutionary because philosophy up until hem considered all humans through an essentialist perspective that we're all more or less the same or preassembled with the same purpose. Kirkagard as an existentialist philosopher questioned

41:40 that existence comes first and then we discover our true essence or purpose or unique self. How do we find our unique self? For Kagot, religious fables play an important role. He references Abraham the Jewish prophet whom God asked to sacrifice his own son Isaac. This is perhaps the most difficult choice a person can make. Kagod had a similar dilemma whether to marry Rejene or not to marry in similar vein to Hamlet to be or not to be. It is through our freedom to make choices that our unique self emerges. This is the first step in the philosophy of existentialism. For Kikod we all have to make choices in life. You wake up in the morning, you can either go back to bed or go to work. The food

42:26 you eat, the people you make friends with, the books you read, the videos you watch. But the biggest choices we make is often between our own happiness and duty towards others. And Anna Karen in a Toltoy poses this very same question to Anna who abandons her husband and son in pursuit of her own happiness. The outcome is tragic for her and everyone around her. For Kik God, we all free to submit to authorities. For instance, we have the choice to listen to God or disobey him, get married or not, love someone or not, take responsibility or not. There is no quick fix. It's only we can make decisions and once we make the decision, we have to live by them. In other words, this state of being is

43:12 essentially paradoxical that causes us fear and trembling. Freedom comes with responsibility which is the opposite of freedom. Choices come with consequences good and bad which are the opposite of choices. In other words, our nature pushes us in one direction but our moral duty into another direction. As NZ said, quote, "Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the superman, a rope over an abyss, a dangerous crossing and dangerous wayfairing. A dangerous looking back. a dangerous trembling and halting. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal. Another paradox is between moral transparency and natural concealment. Nature is full of stealth, camouflage, and deception.

43:59 Predators must deceive to eat and survive. The same can be true among humans. The most successful people tend to be the smartest who is able to conceal their true intention. Yet social morality puts a massive emphasis on honesty as being the best policy. Transparency is an attempt to prevent tragic events. While in nature, tragedy is an inherent aspect of life. Kugard gives examples from the Greek tragedies in which characters often kill their own loved ones simply because they didn't know them clearly. A son killing his father or a father killing his own son without being aware of their true identity. One of the most heartbreaking tale in the Persian epic of Shaama is precisely this. The hero Rostam without knowing kills his own son. In other

44:45 words, in the real world or in nature, you commit the act before asking questions. If Roostam didn't kill his son, he might have been killed himself. In other words, in order to achieve a goal, one must conceal. The same is true of Abraham, who concealed his true intention when he brought Isaac to the mountain to sacrifice him. The boy might have refused or the whole society might have outraged and stopped him. He would not have been able to achieve his goal of obeying God. This nobody can fully grasp and understand except Abraham himself. Kugard argues that when we face a tough decision, it's hard for others to fully understand what goes on inside the person. Abraham holding his young son or Hamlet holding the human skull are the only ones who truly understand

45:31 the choices they make. Making choice is synonymous with having the authority to make such choice. But with authority comes responsibility. Kugot goes a step further saying that this hard to explain such choices or dilemas through rationality. It's only possible to explain those situations through faith. What is faith? It's a kind of resignation or deferring authority to God. Faith is almost like love because both love and faith throws reason almost out of the window. They're a bit blind. But for Keagard, faith is not without doubt. Doubt is part of the baggage. Quote, doubt is conquered by faith just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world. Now here later

46:16 existentialist philosophers saw a hole in Kiran's philosophy. Frederick Ner removed God from existentialism and made it purely an artistic pursuit. Jean Paul Sat also saw a problem with Krugerg's illusion to Abraham's tale saying that first of all the man should have been more cynical of the angel and also should have questioned his true intention. S's existentialism which I have discussed here removed god and faith and replaced it with nothingness or emptiness of life which gives us the opportunity to build our own self from scratch. Kenud Hamson the Norwegian genius novelist has a different take. He argues that Kagot wasn't talking about daily choices we make but the principle that underlines those choices. In other words, we follow certain values and our

47:02 daily choices are some extent determined by the underlying principal values. For example, some religious people refrain from certain activities like sex before marriage while atheists do not hesitate to indulge in such activities. Why? Because they follow different value systems. The solution to modern despair and anxiety according to Keagard is truly personal. One has to find a unique path for himself or herself to feel fulfilled. There is no blueprint one can follow and find happiness. The only blueprint Kirk God offers is this. You alone are responsible to find meaning for your own life. Quote, a crowd is indeed made up of single individuals. It must therefore be in everyone's power to

47:48 become what he is, a single individual. No one is prevented from being a single individual. No one, unless he prevents himself by becoming [Music] many. August 1881, while taking a walk nearby a woods, N was suddenly struck with an idea. So struck that he spent the next 10 days feverishly writing. The result is thus spoke zoratustra n's philosophical novel. In fact, his only novel which is also his most popular book. Many novelists and artists have this experience when you are flooded with ideas. If you're writing a novel, words just flow. If you are a painter, your brush just glide. If you're

48:33 religious, you might call it divine revelation. But if you are secular, you might call it artistic flow. Nature's experience was somewhat similar to a shamanistic experience when ideas, words, images flood in and you have no control over it. Kind of epiphany. It's also important to note that niche wrote thus spoke zaratusra in response to the death of god in which he offers his solution to nihilism that everything is meaningless. Humans have lost purpose. Life has no inherent meaning anymore. and that niche is thus spokra explains how art can liberate us from nihilism after the death of god. In other words, nature tries to replace god with human artists whom he called uberch. I will also explain the three main concepts in

49:19 the novel eternal recurrence will to power and ub which is translated as overman over human or even superman. I'll also discuss why Niche's answer to nihilism is art and how artists like Marcel Puce, France Kafka, Charles Bakowski fit into Niche's notion of Uber Mench, artists who transcended themselves. At the end, I'll respond to Jordan Peterson's criticisms of Niete. God is dead. For thousands of years, God or Gods provided us human psychological protection, spiritual and emotional comfort and a set of robust moral values and a clear path for life and afterlife. When there was a divine power above, humans didn't have to worry about meaning or purpose. Everything was

50:06 set and we all had to do was follow these instructions and everything was fine. But during renaissance starting in 15th century Europe with the help of discoveries made by science and technology people explored the world and the cosmos to realize that it was too simplistic to believe in God. The old stories of earth being at the center of the universe didn't hold anymore. The European Enlightenment of the 18th century that followed brought forward a set of robust and reasonable philosophical arguments against the existence of God in favor of humans who could replace God if they were rational enough. Humanism or a human- centered philosophy was born. Then in the 19th century, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection further damaged the idea of God and posited that humans were

50:52 no longer special but just another species of animal. Ner was bold enough to announce that God was truly dead and we killed him. Quote, "Thus spoke the devil to me once upon a time. Even God has his hell. It is his love for man." And lately I hear him say these words, "God is dead. Of his pity for man has God died." Now the father being dead, there's a power vacuum where the sons and daughters have to work out a new set of values to guide them in life. Without a chaperon, humans would either destroy themselves or get lost in the wilderness. Without God telling us what's right and wrong, we humans have to re-evaluate values such as happiness, reason, virtue, righteousness, and pity.

51:38 N is aware that European philosophers have replaced God with rationality and put rational humans on the pedestals. Just a side note, the solitude that came after the death of God is beautifully depicted in 100 Years of Solitude, a novel by the Colombian author Gabriel Garcia Marquez in which a group of people move into a new town and start everything over, but after a few generations destroy themselves. However, Ane says there is a problem with rationality. Two things can happen. It either leads to authoritarianism in which the leaders can employ reason to create their own values and rules and subjects everyone else to those rules in a in a kind of self-referential way as if they have replaced gods. This idea of a self-referential being is brilliantly

52:24 depicted in dsttovski's crime and punishment in which the protagonist thinks he is beyond all laws and morality. What does he do? He murders an old but rich woman to use her money to build himself so that he can change the world. Of course, Darovski was also against nihilism. So, Rascolnikov ends up in Siberia to repent for his crime and seek salvation inside the Bible. NE however doesn't seek answer in religion. That story is dead. You cannot revive a dead body. Instead, you have to find a new answer. So, neither religion nor rationality is the answer to nihilism. Rationality according to nature also leads us to utilitarianism meaning promoting action rules policies and values that benefits the greatest number of people. A good example is a concept

53:10 of democracy in which the majority rules at least on paper. NE has a very low opinion of the majority or crowd because for him the crowd is dull and lacks excellence refinement and greatness. Instead of promoting the best, rational utilitarianism promotes the most. Instead of nourishing the brightest, it holds back until the stupidest can catch them. Quantity over quality. Plato also had a similar problem with the Athenian democracy. Akin to mob rule that killed one of the greatest minds of the ancient Greece, Socrates. So nature and Plato both saw the majority rule as something negative for a culture to flourish. Rationality also produces conformity. Everyone thinking, behaving, and feeling the same way. If you're weird, strange

53:57 outsider or think outside the box or you stick out as most artists do in some way, you are hammered. Artists are weird, often terrible people in person. There are many more examples. So rationality replaces a single god with a single rational truth. Be it a scientific truth or a political truth, but the idea is that nobody can challenge it. A kind of perfectionist rational utopia very similar to totalitarianism like fascism in Germany or Stalinism in Russia. Both were the products of rationality and the belief to level the world in order to create their own rational utopias based on a perfectionist vision of a single race in the case of Nazi Germany or a single ideology in the case of Soviet socialism. In essence, rationality is nothing but a tool to achieve whatever

54:44 your goal is. It could be something great and it could also be something terrible. N's criticism is that rationality is a crude tool when it comes to human excellence or greatness. So to sum up, God is dead in the European Enlightenment offered reason as a replacement for God and nature object to that. Rationality is a tool. It is not an end in of itself. It needs something else to give us human a purpose. Just like Dioski did a few decades before Nietze. So what is Nietze's solution to the problem of nihilism in the absence of God? if rationality is an inadequate answer. Tosski returned to religion, a sort of modified Christianity with with some eastern flavor and peasant wisdom as an answer to nihilism. N thinks that boat

55:30 has sailed. Religion is an old story. So human understand the world through the prism of science. Once seen, it cannot be unseen. If you're exposed to science, it's hard to convince yourself to return to religion. So what do you do? He instead offers art as a solution to the death of God and nihilism. Okay, for the rest of this video, I'll explain how Nze thinks art can replace God, as well as counterbalance rationality to keep humanity from going mad and how art can give humans a genuine purpose in life. Zaratustra. Thus spoke Zaratustra is a fictional story of a man called Zoratustra based on an ancient Persian prophet who is credited to be the

56:16 founder of the first monotheistic religion called Zoroastrianism which divided the world into good and evil. Later on Judaism, Christianity and Islam all adopted monotheism from Zoroastrinism in the Middle East. For nature, the single god idea coupled with binary notions of good and evil were in essence created to enslave humanity through uniform thinking. You are either good or evil. You are either with us or against us. Na also sees a parallel between montheistic religions and western philosophical tradition all the way back to Socrates who put emphasis on reason alone. Rationality is good and passion is evil. Prestocratic Greeks had great literary tragedies in which reason

57:02 always went hand inhand with passion. Apollo the god of reason was counterbalanced by Dianisis the god of wine and passion. But Socrates and later Aristotle in particular introduced truth or a single truth which later fit perfectly in line with a Christian's notion of single god to steer western philosophy in the wrong direction. According to nature, instead of promoting free thinking, it stifled artistic creativity by suppressing human nature and passion as ugly and animalistic. Only rationality and faith in God were the correct way of understanding the world. So in this novel which is an act of literary revenge, Nietze takes Zaratustra, the man who founded monotheism, single god

57:48 and single truth and good and evil and transforms him into his own antithesis or his own enemy. Instead of believing in a single god and good old moral values of good and evil, Zoratusra in this novel believes that God is dead and he's being replaced by a new kind of humans which he calls uber mench or overman who is capable of creating his own values. But Uber unlike being a self-reerential rationalist is an artist or very close to an artist. Zoratra too goes through a kind of spiritual transformation. It's important to note that Zaratus stress 40 years old. We see countless of novels and stories of men turning 40 and suddenly they have an existential or midlife crisis. Dstovski

58:36 wrote notes from underground at the age of 42 or 43. Ner wrote this when he was about 37. It's a precarious time in a man's life when existential angsts come to a very sharp focus and people reflect on life. So Zaratustra spends 10 years in a mountain cave to gain wisdom. Solitude was quite important for Nietze. Also for many novelists and artists, solitude is immensely valuable in their creation. Charles Bakowski who was massively influenced by Nietze loved his solitude. The same story with Kafka and Pru. Both spend hours and hours sitting alone to make their artistic creation. N didn't believe in crowd wisdom in the city. Instead, he sends his protagonist, Mr. orustra to the mountains to be alone

59:22 inside a cave. As I said earlier, this idea came to Nietze in the woods, not on a city street. So it all makes sense. Once our two stress overflowing with wisdom, he descends to the city. He tells people that God is dead. He also tells them about Uber Msh, but as expected, everyone laughs at him, thinking he's some mad dude talking bollocks. It's important because NZ says great men are always laughed at by the stupid crowd. Disappointed Zoratusra retreats to his cave. Back to nature. For Nature is the source of wisdom, not cities or crowd. Elitist? You bet. Nature didn't hide his elitism. In Western Christian tradition, humans have descended from the Garden of Eden to

1:00:09 Earth. Therefore, nature is often considered ugly, chaotic, and even dirty. Christians see themselves as temporary guests on this terrible planet like exiled on an island and waiting to return to heaven. Nature however more in line with eastern philosophy thinks not only we are from nature but we are nature ourselves. Therefore should derive meaning not from the heavens but from nature. Life is full of suffering but also joy. Nature also criticized eastern religions. For example, he rejected Buddhism for trying to tame human desire. According to Buddhism, our desires are the root causes of our suffering. In order to be content, one must temper their desire. Na says, "Our

1:00:54 desires allow us to take risks, grow, and overcome obstacles. Without desires, we would not do much." Na also criticized Towoism and its idea of non-resistance. According to Towism, you should go with the flow of nature. Instead of going against the current, you should flow with the current. Don't move obstacles, but avoid it. Like water goes around the rock. N says to overcome and grow, hurdles are necessary. Nothing grows without resisting. For N, one must grow and increase power, which may come at a cost of pain and discomfort. Once Zoratustra returns to the cave, nature introduces two important doctrines based on the law of nature in order to teach

1:01:39 Zorustra. The first doctrine is also the most misunderstood. It's will to power. Nature's will to power was used by the Nazis to promote violence and repression of the weaker races as they called. The second idea is eternal recurrence. So in the next part of this video, I'll explain each in more details. Will to power. NE was influenced by the German philosopher of pessimism Arthur Schopenhauer who argued that every living being has a will to live but life itself is nothing but suffering. Ner was also aware of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection which also stated that there is an innate will to survive in every living being. Nij however thought that a will to live or a

1:02:26 will to survive is too weak too passive and too cowardly. To make matters worse na didn't like the pessimism of shopenhau that life is nothing but suffering. Sure life has its suffering but also triumphs achievements excellence and artistic beauty. It's important to note that author Schopenhau was perhaps the most influential philosopher on 19th century literature. Novelists like toolstoair were hugely influenced by shopenhau. Niche was the most influential philosopher on the 20th century literature. Novelists like France Kafka, Thomas man, Robert Musil, Joyce, Marcel Pruce and Bicowski all were highly influenced by N's philosophy. Nij argued that the most important law of nature is not the will to live or survive but to grow and

1:03:13 expand. So will to power in essence is to make the most of one's life not to cry about suffering and pain but to thrive despite the pain and suffering in order to achieve greatness in any field be it art writing or science. All living beings instinctively want to dominate others. This is by no means a positive or negative thing but how nature functions as it's immoral. I think power for nature was not equal to physical force. A piece of music or a novel or watching some skillful person performing something in it in of itself is powerful as it moves you when you listen to read or watch it. It doesn't have the repressive consequence of let's say political power but it's psychologically and emotionally powerful nonetheless.

1:04:01 For nija will to power can be channeled in creative way that promotes human greatness. For example, an artist producing great works of art is channeling his lust for power in the shape of a great painting, a piece of music or a literary work like a novel. Nze calls such people uber who is not a selfish man seeking power to suppress others instead to elevate others. Quote, the creator seeks companions not corpses and not herds or believers either. The creator seeks fellow creators. In other words, the will to power is not to destroy others but to bring them up and inspire them. That's what a great piece of art does. Be it a painting or a novel. That's why Nietze centers his

1:04:47 vision on art, not politics. Because politicians want to control others like an authoritarian parent, while artists try to inspire others to grow beyond themselves like a nourishing parent. Eternal recurrence. The second doctrine niche teaches Zarustra is eternal recurrence. This is much harder for Zarustra to accept. To understand eternal recurrence, we need to think of time and matter in the universe. We understand that time is infinite. In the universe, time never ends. Matter, however, is finite. So what happens when you have a finite amount of one thing and infinite amount of another? The

1:05:33 finite thing has to repeat itself over and over to make up for being limited. Since time is infinite, but matter in the universe is finite, everything is repeated forever like a hamster wheel. That's n's eternal recurrence, which is very similar to eastern cyclical notion of the world. This means the sublime, the good, the bad, and the terrible are repeated endlessly in the universe. Of course, the cycles are rare and happens after millions and billions of years, so to speak. This thought is incredibly depressing for Zarustra. How could it be that the terrible things are repeated again and again? If you believe in a linear notion of time, you think everything is getting better and you are moving towards perfection. But according

1:06:19 to N's eternal recurrence, that is not so. In the grand scheme of things, everything is repeated. Zoratustra finally comes to terms and accepts it. Quote, "And once you are awake, you shall remain awake eternally." So the two laws of nature are will to power meaning every being wants to grow and dominate their fields. Be it an artist or scientist or even a brick layer. Nature would define human not as human being but human becoming. Being is too passive. The second law is eternal recurrence that everything is repeated perpetually. Now let me explain the journey of Uber Mench or the hero's journey so to speak. Uber mench ner says humans are a

1:07:06 rope between apes and uber msh. Quote man is something that shall be overcome. Man is a rope tied between beast and overman. A rope over an abys. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end. So nature believes in the dynamic of change and growth. Being a human is a precariously dangerous place to be. So there's every incentive to overcome this situation. For n great

…