Losing My Mind at One Star Reviews of Classic Books

0:00 some people absolutely hate classic philosophy or classic literature and I think it's important that we understand why because sometimes they give incredibly astute critiques of the contents of these Classics and at other times they may help us understand where we might be misunderstanding some of the books that we read so fresh from Goodreads here are some OnStar reviews of some of the most influential philosophy and literature of all time I hope you enjoy right here we have a review of Doo's magnum opus the brothers karamazov and it reads I know it makes me look ignorant and UNC to declare a masterpiece of literature by one of the greats to be awful but here I am I've wanted to read the brothers karamazov for years and years I was looking forward to the type of revelatory

0:46 experience I had with Anna Kena a few years back the oh wow now I see what everyone was talking about with TL sto's awesome experience but no I managed to wage through the first quarter or so of the audiobook before the library demanded it back for another Patron and I can't say I was sorry to see it Go although admittedly it was right as I was starting on the story of the grand Inquisitor which is supposed to be the great contribution of the novel so perhaps I ought to give it a few more chapters I think this review speaks to a shared experience that many people have reading the brothers karamazov which is that nothing really happens for 300 to 400 Pages the main event of the novel doesn't occur until I think page 500 or 600 around that area and it's a lot of being introduced to people uh dithering around in monasteries um having

1:33 conversations over drinks and mainly people talking and mainly people walking and I love that kind of thing I absolutely love it in films or in TV shows or in books when most of it is taken up by just people chatting to one another because it gives you a chance to explore each character's worldview and indeed that is how Doki uses this time to great effect in the brothers karamazov you get a really detailed introduction to what each brother thinks and how each brother approaches life you get active demonstrations of Demitri's passion and his sensuality and his particular weaknesses and his flaws right he gets carried away one of the first scenes you see of him is him flying into anger for ran you get a flavor of what his intellectual background is and what he is seeking in

2:19 his inquiries he gets introduced as an atheist you find out that he is staying at um Theodor pavlovic's house and that he has taken up this sort of influential position over smov who is um Theodor pavlovic's uh supposed illegitimate son and living in Fodor pavlovic's household you also get introduced to aliosha the more spiritual brother and you get a sort of potted life story of each but I do really sympathize where this review is coming from funny enough I recommended the brothers kazol to a very dear friend of mine and after a while of having it he called me up and he said Joe does anything happen in this book like I'm up page 350 and so far nothing really gone on I was like no stick with it you you there there is absolutely stuff in it you just need to persevere through all of this initial slow start

3:07 though I would say the slow start itself contains a lot of quite fascinating philosophy you really get an insight into dov's own views particularly on Russian Society because you get a kind of gloss of the of the place of the monastery and the the place of the the elders and the and the priesthood in the society that dovi is living in and writing it it's also interesting that this review identifies the grand Inquisitor as kind of the main point of the novel I'm not sure that I would agree but I do think the grand Inquisitor sets up many of the theological issues that are addressed to a certain extent later in the novel like uh the tension between happiness and freedom and whether you can live in a world without God or whether the idea of God has become more important than God or Christ's message itself again fascinating stuff but yeah I I I'm kind of broadly on board with where this

3:53 person's coming from even if I I respectfully disagree the second review of the brothers K that I want to touch upon is this one and it reads this book temporarily killed my love of reading and sent me spiraling into a reading slump that lasted 2 months I finished Parts one and two then I put it on hold until I could muster up the courage to pick it up again about 4 months later then I wanted to finish it by the end of 2018 and failed these characters are such High School drama they're storming with jealousy bitter angry infatuated obsessed crying fainting lying murdering stealing begging drinking scoffing then figing indifference then doing it all over again all within the span of a page it's nuts now this obviously touches upon a similar point to the first review

4:39 in the first half of it where it's talking about how the book takes a while to get going but I wanted to focus on the second half where they identify quite plausibly that dov's characters don't quite act like real people and I think this is broadly true it's it's if anything I think kind of a strength of dov's writing though maybe that's because I'm not that much of a fan of realistic characters in literature I don't tend to find realistic characters quite as engaging as these more exaggerated or heightened characters I suppose and dov's characters are certainly exaggerated there's this overriding theme that each of the characters in his novels will tend to represent some broader idea or some philosophy or or way to approach life so in the brothers karamazov as we said

5:25 alosha represents this spiritual existence which means for much of the book with a few exceptions he is almost superhumanly wonderful and dovi even points this out it's in the in his introduction to alyosha's character he says that alosha is almost supernaturally beloved by all likewise Ivan represents this atheistic in dov's opinion overintellectualizing view on life and as a result he is tormented by ideas to the extent that not many people in real life are but again that allows Dov to use the character to give arguments and thoughts on a particular philosophy I also think that it really heightens some of these scenes that otherwise could come across as quite dull even when there's nothing that's

6:11 physically going on that seems that action-packed or if a plot Point hasn't hit for you know couple hundred Pages maybe there are still these characters experiencing these indepth and dramatic emotional stakes and that raises even the most trivial seeming of scenes into almost the realm of of of melodrama at points but I mean that in a positive way I don't mean melodrama in the sense of totally ridiculous and bordering on comical though I think some people probably do have that experience from reading some of the scenes in the brothers caram asov I mean that it takes ordinary life and puts this fantastic spin on it while at the same time never actually breaking from some kind of realistic Sheen like whenever there are Supernatural elements in dovi they tend

6:56 to at least be plausibly explained by other naturalistic things like Ivon starts seeing the devil at one point in the brothers karamazov but it could be explained by a fever or a hallucination you know who knows but I really am fond of the Fantastic realism used by dovi in his character writing which is a phrase that critics often use to describe his works but yes if you personally are more of a fan of downto Earth stories then perhaps this book isn't quite for you okay next we have a review for kmak McCarthy's Blood Meridian and it reads world's worst writer produces another piece of garbage that will appeal to thickos whose favorite book is either fight club or American Psycho because they think contrived writing full of deliberate idiot bait should be interpreted as meaningful literature you've been had you fools I like the the

7:43 contrast in tone between calling uh the people that enjoy Blood Meridian thickos and then the note of sympathy in warning them that they've been had and that and that they're being taken advantage of and that they are the fool in this situation I'll have to disagree with this person's assessment of Blood Meridian I agree that it's not for everyone and I wouldn't class it among my favorite books in fact when I reread it to write my video on it I really didn't enjoy the experience I just I don't really like violence in literature like I I don't mind it in small doses but in general it's really not my kind of thing I'm quite squeamish uh to be honest this is a thing that's changed since I was a teenager when I was a teenager I could sit through violent TV shows and I could I could watch violent movies and I could read violent books and it just wouldn't phase me at all and then I hit about like 22 23 and all of a sudden it would just gently start to

8:30 bother me like I I would physically feel myself empathizing more with the characters who are suffering and that kind of got me down as a result I probably read fewer books with violence in them than I used to and I certainly don't watch much um violent TV or or violent film but yes I would say that there are definitely ideas in Blood Meridian that are worth exploring you know there's this underlying Gnostic philosophy that underpins quite a lot of KX work but is especially prevalent here I also think I would defend the violence in blood Meridian as serving a purpose it really does enhance the atmosphere of the novel and again I'm saying that as somebody who doesn't particularly enjoy reading about violence in novels it really does place you in the mind of this roving gang of amoral psychotic Cowboys and the interesting thing about

9:16 the violence in Blood Meridian is you become more and more inured to it over the course of the novel in much the same way that the kid does right so at the beginning of the novel when we first see the kind of extreme violence that takes place in Blood Meridian it really shocks you right you really think oh God this is horrible it emotionally impacts you right you see these horrible scenes being described and it gets to you but then as the violence goes on and on you kind of get used to it and then by the end of the novel some violence scene will be described and you just think well I mean you know six of one half a dozen of the other right now it just doesn't matter to me I've read so many horrible atrocities over the past 300 odd pages that I'm just I'm just done right I I can't feel anything in response to even the most horrific

10:02 violence and I think this sort of mirrors McCarthy's analysis of the glanton gang right where they gradually increase their barbarity over time because the barbarity they were enacting before no longer strikes them as particularly shocking so they can just get that bit more shocking and then that doesn't strike them as shocking then they get a bit more shocking and before you know it they're all being absolutely horrible people with very few redeeming qualities and that can be a real SLO to read and some people hate it but I think it makes a really effective point about the nature of violence and the psychology of committing increasingly evil acts that are normalized in your own mind so no I don't think this is idiot bait and I do think that it constitutes meaningful literature I sometimes think people can get so hung up on the shock factor involved in the violence that the underlying meaning and

10:47 underlying Effectiveness can get totally missed though of course this could constitute its own critique of macarthy's work if there is this underlying purpose to the violence but it's coming across as gruve has the message really hit him I ultimately don't know but I do think that the slightly condescending and almost angry tone taken by this review is a bit of a shame but it does make for entertaining reading so next we have two broadly unenthusiastic reviews of stals on love which if you've been around the channel for any length of time you'll know is one of my favorite books ever so the first review just reads I enjoyed star's other books but this just seemed like the ravings of a pissed off teenager and the second review s this book is strictly speaking about infatuation and

11:32 courtship his theory of Love which he calls crystallization is based on the stage of idealization of the other when everything about him or her seems perfect and doubt about the feelings of the other permeates the relationship I don't think there is a word written in this book about long-term companionship I pick these reviews partly because I actually sort of think that they may be onto something I I as I say this is one of my favorite books I'm not bad mouthing star but I do think that both of them get to a core critique of the book that many raise against it and I would also gently raise against it as well there's a reason why my video covering the book is called um why crushes are so painful and not a kind of broader uh video about the nature of Love or something like that it's because

12:19 stal is largely concerned with the initial short-term stages of love as this review says it's about that moment where you feel head over heels for someone but don't necessarily know them all that well stal talks a lot about how the image of the Beloved can become aized in your mind and you become obsessed with that over the person themselves and I think it's important to note that star's description of Love is just that it is descriptive of a certain stage of love where it is a bit more akin to infatuation in fact some psychologists use star's theory of love as the foundation for their theory of limerance which is meant to be this kind of sorted obsessive sort of love that often does crop up in the initial stages of getting to know someone and you get

13:05 to imagine that they're wonderful and will solve all your problems and then you get with him and you find that that's not true and this love has to mature into something a little bit more stable and a little bit less based on Obsession and short-term emotional Thrills however I do also think that's one reason why I really like the book because it deals with this stage of love that most people including myself find sort of intensely embarrassing right you know you find yourself uh thinking about another person in ways that are not appropriate at that stage of knowing them you know they they occupy too much of your thought you know to to to put it gently and I I like the fact that stal examines this with a sort of almost

13:50 analytic philosophical lens um he's very good at breaking down his observations about this early stage of love in a atic way that basically anyone can understand and most people can recognize I think that a lot of works of philosophy about love things like uh Plato Symposium or um the reflections of Michelle deont about uh love and companionship and um and indeed sort of 20th century views on love from people like um Eric from right where he talks about loving as a as a skill that you develop and I think there's value to be had in all of these but I do think that they tend to skirt over the more insane stages of of of early love with someone so I like stal because it reminds me of something like

14:37 um the Sorrows of young verta which is by uh Johan Vonta uh which is about this kind of obsessed young man someone who just can't get uh his beloved out of their head and in Vera's case this ends in just absolute disaster which of course obsessive love often can but I think that this sort of extreme obsessive love that can often end in in tragedy and and can lead to all sorts of ugly things is often present to a far lesser extent in your average person I mean who can say that they haven't done something embarrassing in this sort of as I said early stage of courtship early stage of love so this is one of those scenarios where I both sort of agree with these reviews it does sometimes sound a bit like a pissed off teenager and it doesn't deal with these deeper long-term companionate kinds of love but

15:23 I think that's part of what makes the work so valuable because this isn't a topic that's treated much in this systematic way elsewhere I think that star's on love is still the most comprehensive and insightful treatment of this particular kind of love and affection that I have ever read okay now for something completely different we have a review of ludvig Vicken Stein's philosophical investigations and this person really didn't like it and it reads Place me firmly in the camp of vonstein builder of a mountain of gibberish there is simply nothing remarkable or uniquely inside ful of The Human Condition in this meaningless nonsense a masterpiece of course not the most important philosophical work of the 20th century if so we are all condemned

16:09 to Believe In Unicorns and Utopias to a certain extent I think this reviewer may have vastly overestimated the scope of lud Vicken Stein's philosophical investigations for those of you that don't know this is a poly published notebook of ludic Vicken Stein that he um wrote in his later years and it presents a picture of language that is far more functional than many philosophers at the time uh would give it credit for essentially and vicenin was very interested in the different ways that people could use language and also the implicit rules of communication so say that you and I are having a discussion there are kind of implicit things that we both agree to do and not do with regards to that discussion a standard rule that's present in quite a lot of conversations is if you ask me a question and the question doesn't appear

16:54 to be hostile or rude then I'll do my best to answer that question and there there are loads of others but essentially that is one of the main linguistic points that Vicken Stein makes in the philosophical investigations he also puts forward this idea of family resemblances to Define terms so take the term game actually is his example of this different games share certain properties but also don't share numerous others right there's there's not much that Monopoly and hockey and chess and poker and um Solitaire all have in common um and you know you can TR video games in there now but um Vicken Stein thinks that we can nonetheless sensibly talk about games because while there's no necessary and sufficient set of conditions that can define a game we can still notice the

17:41 trends within how the term is used and construct a family resemblance between uh individual games and thus this allows us to conveniently put them all under one label so I think that when this person says that there's nothing remarkable or uniquely insightful of The Human Condition I think that you know most people probably agree um just because most people aren't nearly as hung up on issues of language as um I and other philosophers are when they call it meaningless nonsense I would really like to to push back on that though because I think that um the functional analysis of language has proved incredibly influential uh you won't get many people now saying oh yeah language is just about semantic meaning and logical connections no most people do think in

18:26 terms of the purposes language is using for and I actually think that if more people understood the idea that there are diverse language games and that language is used for a myriad of different purposes then they'd be able to make sense of dialogue and conversation and different types of conversation much more easily we have a few different recognized language games in everyday speech I mean the classic thing that people ask is is this serious or is this satire but of course there is a huge Middle Ground between those two caps you know there's there's kind of outright satires like volz's candid where it's very much ironically saying this is the best of all possible worlds when really Vol means this is not the best of all possible worlds and I'm going to show how ridiculous that

19:12 proposition is that's like a real fullblown satire in contrast with lenets who just put forward the idea that we live in the best of all possible worlds and put it forward as a serious proposition but there are things in the middle of this right so for example the BBC show Yes Minister um I don't know if you've watched it uh please do if you haven't it's it's absolutely hilarious it's one of my favorite TV shows but there they make a satire of the practices of the British government but it's a very different kind of satire to say what voler does in candid because it's what I would call a semi sympathetic satire all of the main characters are members of the UK civil service or uh the government in some way and although it heavily criticizes these figures and what they do it also shows

19:57 the situation from their perspective so while it's critiquing them you're also as the audience implicitly rooting for one or more of them a fair amount of the time sometimes you're kind of outright against them but quite a lot of the time the relationship between the audience and the characters is a little bit more complicated than that and that's a classic example of something that's not quite full satire and not a serious proposition but something that lies between and I think that we could do well to recognize these more Nuance styles of language game like being tongue and cheek is a kind of language game where you're not being super serious but you're also not outright denying your statements you might be saying I believe this but I recognize it's a bit silly or I recognize that something is is is false but at the same

20:45 time I can see how people would believe it and I'm not going to outright mock or condemn them and there you might not be able to say as in the case of satire that the speaker definitely doesn't believe the contents of their sentences but you might not be able to say that they believe the whole contents of their sentences they might just believe the general thrust or some underlying implication of their statements so yeah and I think that Vicken Stein's philosophical investigations just opens up this whole world of language analysis that previously I don't think was fully appreciated at least not in the world of philosophy so yes I would gently push back on this person's analysis of Vicken Stein's philosophical investigations but nonetheless they're probably right that it's not the most important philosophical work of the 20th century and probably also right that you won't

21:31 discover some kind of groundbreaking analysis of the entire Human Condition here this is first and foremost a work about language and I love that that's that's one of the reasons why I really like Vicken Stein's philosophical investigations but if you're not similarly obsessed with language then it might not be for you though I would encourage an obsession with language it is like the medium through which we communicate with one another and inesh ourselves in these social Fabrics that dictate and Define and influence so much of our lives so I don't know maybe if you're not obsessed with language get a bit more obsessed with language man it's it's fascinating next we have a onear review for Max sterner's book the ego and its own or the unique and its property depending on which translation you prefer and it reads this book is

22:17 dangerous and the ideas contained in it may impact my salvation the worldview stern portrays is so absolutely pessimistic it can be a useful book for understanding better the Human Condition but the book is so horribly depressing so for those of you that don't know Max Sterner the ego in its own is a book that promotes egoism that is the idea that in some way we do or should only care about ourselves he criticizes moral ideals and religions as Spooks and he instead glorifies individual human agency he's been very influential in Anarchist thought particularly on the more rightwing end of things but also on the left I think that the anarchist Emma Goldman was particularly influenced by

23:03 Sterner if I remember correctly don't don't pull me up on that I I don't know if I'm just misremembering things but in either case the reason I wanted to hone in on this review in particular is the phrase the ideas contained in it may impact my salvation because that's just not an attitude that you tend to get to books anymore but it is an old one um the Catholic Church used to ban a whole host of books ban as in forbid Catholic readers from reading them or Catholic Publishers I suppose once the kind of Gutenberg Press got started and all that sort of thing from reproducing them and their reasoning behind this was pretty straightforward they thought that certain books would expose people to dangerous ideas and not just dangerous in the sense of it might make them do

23:51 things that were unhelpful to society they thought it might impact their salvation they thought it might put their soul at risk for all I've criticized the Banning of books in the past I actually think that this reasoning is in some sense really taking ideas seriously it is really taking books seriously in some ways it's a real Mark of respect to a given idea or a given book that you think that it can literally impact the scope of Eternity and this person is arguing within that tradition the reason that he's condemning sterner's book is that he thinks that it might damn him to hell and I don't know I think it's kind of I don't know if Charming is the right word um but I think that it reflects the fact that this reviewer is truly taking the ideas in sterner's work seriously and I

24:37 think that in some ways that is a real Mark of respect I also think that his point that the world view sterer portrays is quite pessimistic is shared by a great many who read sterner's work I think that most people and I would probably count myself in this Camp do think that the part of sterner's work where he actually positively advocates for egoism are perhaps less convincing than the parts where he is just criticizing the idea of a moral ideal or the idea of a supernaturally based religion or humanism or something like that like he has some quite astute critiques as to how moral systems ought to ground themselves as in he suspects that they can't ground themselves but if you think that a moral system could ground itself then it really raises

25:22 questions as to how it might do so and I think that kind of stuff is very philosophically interesting I think that there are problems with his positive conception of egoism that I rais in my video on the topic so I won't recap them here but I also do think that people tend to have this emotional reaction to sterer where they just find his philosophy depressing and to a certain extent I think that egoism as a philosophy doesn't quite do justice to how much we humans need one another I don't think that sterer writing in the 19th century can appreciate just how much Humanity will be discovered to be a fundamentally social species I think this goes for quite a lot of philosophers um to be honest there's a tendency within philosophy to glorify

26:09 the lone individual standing against the onslaught of the rest of society and sometimes this is an entirely appropriate image but sometimes I do think that it tends towards this extreme individualist picture of what it means to be human I tend to lean towards a picture of the human mind that is slightly more mematic and slightly more influenced by social factors around it but nonetheless I think that sterner's work and especially his critique of the concept of an ideal is is well worth reading though I just wanted to point this out as a review because I think at that point about salvation I don't know it just it just resonated with something in me that was like yeah this guy's this guy's taking this book seriously he truly thinks that it can impact his soul and I I like that next we have an incredibly angry review of France kafka's the trial that reads what is

26:56 this I've read many reviews and saw that I belong to the minority who just didn't like or get this book like the author I'm going to leave the trial unfinished and surrender to the fact that unfortunately France kafka's writing is way too bizarre innan and unrealistic for my tastes the protagonist a pretentious Banker named Joseph Kay woke up one morning to find two strangers in his room who told him that he was under arrest the reason for his conviction is never revealed and even the officers who came to deliver the news are uninformed in the next chapters we follow Kay in a series of encounters that are grounds for meaningless and empty discussion with various characters that seldom reappear throughout the story and don't seem to have an efficient role in the progress of the narrative Kay's so-called quest to seek answers and vindicate his name

27:42 turns out to be futile as he never musters enough courage or audacity to extract definite answers and instead allows his complacency to let him act in a way that harms him more than it helps him in his case I especially loved how almost every female character seems to want him which feeds his arrogance all the more I love the tone of this review it's it's Furious and you know I I'm all for people getting very passionate about literature so yeah I I'm kind of yeah I like I like it when people have these strong intense reactions to to novels and to literature I would say that quite a lot of the things that this author picks up on I don't think that Kafka would deny right Joseph Kay isn't necessarily Meant To Be An Extremely likable character I think this is um something that people quite often expect when going into a novel that the the lead character is going going to be

28:28 someone that you can unambiguously root for or at the very least they're going to be likable but a lot of catholicus protagonists just aren't they are Petty and often resentful and the whole narrative becomes confusing and disorienting but that is sort of the point that's often what people go to Kafka for I like reviews like this because actually in a lot of ways they have described the story very accurately but they have framed it in such a way that it is inherently a critique of the story when in fact even this psychosexual element that they mention at the end is often praised as a strength of kafka's work not necessarily that every female character throws themselves at at the protagonist because that often doesn't happen but that you get to explore the character and kafka's

29:14 rather strange relationship with their own liido uh through the novel but I do think people sometimes do this when they're reading a book right they they will notice something that they don't like and they will implicitly assume that that is inherently a bad thing and then call it as this person's done here as opposed to perhaps wondering that viewed from a slightly different angle these seeming flaws in the story might actually become strengths okay next we have a review for Alber kamu the plague and it reads as follows it started strong all the rats dying in increasing numbers followed by a few people a Great Plague story then some other characters were introduced The Tourist the official the crook the priest the journalist turns out this

30:01 plague story is really just an excuse to show how each one of these guys agonizes over some personal moral decision in dealing with the plague situation darn so I sort of get this existential philosophy thing Camu is going for which says you arrive at the truth not by reason and the semantics of words but by the act of living your life now you can't use reason so to distinguish this philosophy from other flavors of you write a story about people living their lives instead of explain things clearly and logically fine so how would people that you know react to a plague the crook is happy because the cops sto looking for him and is disappointed when the plague is over I've known some Crooks and I guarantee they're going to be trying to get the hell out of Dodge the journalist agonizes over slipping out past the guards because he misses his wife not

30:46 because he wants to escape horrible death of course then finally decides to stay and help only people who spend all day sitting in a cafe and talking about existentialism think this is going to be the Dilemma now I can sort of see where this person is coming from right maybe that's not how you would react in times of Crisis but kamuz not pulling these observations out of nowhere it's thought that many of the characters in the plague are Loosely inspired by how people in France reacted to the Nazi occupation here was a crisis upon the French nation and upon the French people and people did face pretty intense moral dilemas they might have had to put their principles above their family or some might have made the decision decision to put their own personal success well above their

31:31 principles to oppose Hitler and his regime I think this person may underestimate just how often tricky moral decisions crop up in a crisis I mean you can read people's um memoirs about this if they've been through really horrific situations like um you know in Victor frankl's writing or in um or in the gulag archipelago or or or really most uh writers that have gone through something truly horrific will have something to say about the tortuous moral decisions they had to make while in this desperate circumstance I you could even take a a modern example that happens every day right you've got charity workers or or doctors who are agonizing over which patient or which person to allocate scarce resources to right I think that far from moral decisions being mainly the purview of

32:19 people sitting around in cafes I think that moral decisions are often well within the Realms of some people performing the most important jobs in the world and also suffering from the most extreme and barbaric circumstances in the world um I also just want to point out that this uh reviewer sort of really misunderstands C's philosophy Camu holds that his absurdism the idea that life has no meaning and we're kind of struggling to rebel against this lack of meaning either collectively or individually as in his earlier thought he thinks that is primarily based on reason right you get this in the myth of Copus this Reviewer seems to misunderstand this he seems to suggest that kamu thinks you can't use reason in ex existentialist philosophy and that's that's simply not the case I I I wish I could soften the blow but it's it's it

33:04 just isn't I also like this review because it's clearly drawing on the caricature of an existentialist philosopher forgetting that quite a lot of the French existentialists fought and or resisted the literal Nazis at some point so I think that they may be overestimating to what extent these people lived exclusively kushy lives I think that people like kamu and satra were faced with pretty extreme moral decisions and I think that regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with their philosophies or even you know agree or disagree with some of their moral decisions you know especially maybe some of the ones of satra later in life where he signs some perhaps um not overly cool documents but let's not dwell on that uh I think that you would have to admit that they did face moral

33:52 dilemas and that actually in extreme situations moral dilemas do often crop up because morality is an almost ubiquitous part of the way that we make decisions and engage with the world and desperate circumstances will raise the moral stake somewhat right that's all I have for you today if you want to check out my last video on onear reviews of philosophical Classics you can find it right here thank you so much for watching and have a wonderful day