#Rationalist philosophy

[blueheartbooks]

Delving into Kantian Philosophy: A Review of "The Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant's "The Critique of Pure Reason" stands as one of the most influential and enduring works in the history of philosophy, reshaping the landscape of metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of mind. Published in 1781, this monumental treatise seeks to provide a comprehensive account of the nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge, offering profound insights into the nature of reality, the structure of the mind, and the conditions of possibility for knowledge.

At the heart of "The Critique of Pure Reason" is Kant's revolutionary concept of transcendental idealism, which posits that the mind plays an active role in shaping our experience of the world. Kant argues that the mind imposes certain fundamental concepts and categories—such as space, time, and causality—on our sensory perceptions, organizing them into a coherent and intelligible framework. Through his rigorous analysis, Kant seeks to uncover the a priori conditions that make experience possible, shedding light on the fundamental structures of human cognition.

One of the key themes of "The Critique of Pure Reason" is Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena, or appearances and things-in-themselves. Kant argues that while we can only know phenomena as they appear to us through the filter of our cognitive faculties, there exists a realm of noumena that lies beyond the reach of human knowledge. This distinction has profound implications for Kant's philosophy, shaping his views on the limits of human understanding and the nature of metaphysical inquiry.

Moreover, "The Critique of Pure Reason" is notable for its meticulous analysis of the nature of space, time, and causality, which Kant identifies as the fundamental categories of human thought. Kant argues that these categories are not derived from experience, but rather constitute the necessary framework through which we interpret our sensory perceptions. By elucidating the synthetic a priori nature of these categories, Kant lays the groundwork for his transcendental idealism and challenges traditional empiricist and rationalist accounts of knowledge.

In addition to its groundbreaking philosophical insights, "The Critique of Pure Reason" is also celebrated for its rigorous methodology and systematic approach to philosophical inquiry. Kant's meticulous argumentation, intricate terminology, and careful exposition of concepts make "The Critique of Pure Reason" a challenging but rewarding read for scholars and philosophers alike. Kant's influence extends far beyond the boundaries of philosophy, shaping the development of disciplines such as psychology, physics, and linguistics, and leaving an indelible mark on the intellectual landscape of the modern world.

In conclusion, "The Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant is a towering achievement in the history of philosophy, offering profound insights into the nature of human knowledge, the structure of the mind, and the limits of metaphysical inquiry. Kant's rigorous analysis, groundbreaking concepts, and systematic approach to philosophical inquiry make "The Critique of Pure Reason" a timeless classic that continues to inspire and challenge readers with its depth, complexity, and intellectual rigor.

Immanuel Kant's "The Critique of Pure Reason" is available in Amazon in paperback 24.99$ and hardcover 31.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 516

Language: English

Rating: 10/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

#Immanuel Kant #Critique of Pure Reason #Transcendental idealism #Phenomena #Noumena #A priori knowledge #Metaphysics #Epistemology #Synthetic a priori judgments #Space #Time #Causality #Categories of understanding #Rationalism #Empiricism #Skepticism #Transcendental deduction #Transcendental aesthetics #Transcendental logic #Analytic judgments #Synthetic judgments #Appearances #Things-in-themselves #Transcendental unity of apperception #Unity of consciousness #Schematism #Idealism #Rationalist philosophy #Epistemological inquiry #Metaphysical inquiry

[blueheartbookclub]

Delving into Kantian Philosophy: A Review of "The Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant's "The Critique of Pure Reason" stands as one of the most influential and enduring works in the history of philosophy, reshaping the landscape of metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of mind. Published in 1781, this monumental treatise seeks to provide a comprehensive account of the nature, scope, and limits of human knowledge, offering profound insights into the nature of reality, the structure of the mind, and the conditions of possibility for knowledge.

At the heart of "The Critique of Pure Reason" is Kant's revolutionary concept of transcendental idealism, which posits that the mind plays an active role in shaping our experience of the world. Kant argues that the mind imposes certain fundamental concepts and categories—such as space, time, and causality—on our sensory perceptions, organizing them into a coherent and intelligible framework. Through his rigorous analysis, Kant seeks to uncover the a priori conditions that make experience possible, shedding light on the fundamental structures of human cognition.

One of the key themes of "The Critique of Pure Reason" is Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena, or appearances and things-in-themselves. Kant argues that while we can only know phenomena as they appear to us through the filter of our cognitive faculties, there exists a realm of noumena that lies beyond the reach of human knowledge. This distinction has profound implications for Kant's philosophy, shaping his views on the limits of human understanding and the nature of metaphysical inquiry.

Moreover, "The Critique of Pure Reason" is notable for its meticulous analysis of the nature of space, time, and causality, which Kant identifies as the fundamental categories of human thought. Kant argues that these categories are not derived from experience, but rather constitute the necessary framework through which we interpret our sensory perceptions. By elucidating the synthetic a priori nature of these categories, Kant lays the groundwork for his transcendental idealism and challenges traditional empiricist and rationalist accounts of knowledge.

In addition to its groundbreaking philosophical insights, "The Critique of Pure Reason" is also celebrated for its rigorous methodology and systematic approach to philosophical inquiry. Kant's meticulous argumentation, intricate terminology, and careful exposition of concepts make "The Critique of Pure Reason" a challenging but rewarding read for scholars and philosophers alike. Kant's influence extends far beyond the boundaries of philosophy, shaping the development of disciplines such as psychology, physics, and linguistics, and leaving an indelible mark on the intellectual landscape of the modern world.

In conclusion, "The Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant is a towering achievement in the history of philosophy, offering profound insights into the nature of human knowledge, the structure of the mind, and the limits of metaphysical inquiry. Kant's rigorous analysis, groundbreaking concepts, and systematic approach to philosophical inquiry make "The Critique of Pure Reason" a timeless classic that continues to inspire and challenge readers with its depth, complexity, and intellectual rigor.

Immanuel Kant's "The Critique of Pure Reason" is available in Amazon in paperback 24.99$ and hardcover 31.99$ editions.

Number of pages: 516

Language: English

Rating: 10/10                                           

Link of the book!

Review By: King's Cat

#Immanuel Kant #Critique of Pure Reason #Transcendental idealism #Phenomena #Noumena #A priori knowledge #Metaphysics #Epistemology #Synthetic a priori judgments #Space #Time #Causality #Categories of understanding #Rationalism #Empiricism #Skepticism #Transcendental deduction #Transcendental aesthetics #Transcendental logic #Analytic judgments #Synthetic judgments #Appearances #Things-in-themselves #Transcendental unity of apperception #Unity of consciousness #Schematism #Idealism #Rationalist philosophy #Epistemological inquiry #Metaphysical inquiry

[nicolae]

Rationalist philosophy on the free will

Rationalist philosophy on the free will

If Thomism attributes free will to Adam, in the Garden of Eden, mainly to impute to him the origin of evil through disobedience to the order given by God not to eat the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which makes him responsible for original sin (Genesis, chapter 3), other philosophers see things differently, depending on whether their thinking takes place before the…

View On WordPress

#free will #Maimonides #rationalist philosophy #Spinoza

[girlcavalcanti]

god I want them so fucking bad

#this post is about rationalist philosopher baruch spinoza and my former philosophy professor #17th century rationalist philosopher baruch spinoza

[july-19th-club]

so far the best illustration of the main difference between bones and house for me is the fact that on house the large majority of the characters are agnostic, jewish, jewish agnostic, atheist, or some other flavor of non-christian, except for chase, who's the weird guy for being a semi-practicing catholic. on bones, brennan and zack are the only two atheists and everybody else is some flavor of christian (goodman's a deacon, booth is devout if not specific, even conspiracy guy has a vaguely defined belief in god) and if that doesnt say something about the different ethoses there idk what does

#bones has a christian moral framework despite its protagonist being a staunch atheist and rationalist #house has a humanist framework with jewish underpinnings . and as annoying as all the house characters are #i would rather talk philosophy with them than with the bones crowd #for example: in any other show a character with cameron's personality - moralistic softhearted and good-deed-driven - would be religious #and most likely christian of some flavor. but she's a serious and committed atheist in her own story #like i'm on the bones christmas episode in s1 #house has a christmas episode like every season despite the fact that none of them celebrate it for religious reasons lmao #it's just like. a Theme for them. absolutely zero jesus but high chance of yuletide-related pratfalls

[zenosanalytic]

There’s an obvious irony in the most prominent LessWrongers/Rationalists disdaining books for being “too long” when the founder of their movement’s rewrite of JUST THE FIRST BOOK of the Harry Potter series is 80k words longer than ALL of The Lord of the Rings, PLUS The Hobbit, put together and, by all accounts, infinitely more tedious.

#Less Wrong #~Rationalists~ #Eliezer Yudkowsky #Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality #Philosophy #zA's Pompous Philosophizing #zA Snark #frivolous posts

[el-im]

*tevye voice* but on the other hand, it is impossible not to acknowledge some of the particularly christian themes in the wrath of khan--

#i understand the irony of using tevye here but i cannot hear 'on the other hand' without thinking of him #also. VULCANS?! #coded as jewish? christian? japanese? lets take a vote #in which everyone voting only votes for the group they belong to because they see similarities between their cultural experiences #and outlooks and spock's. #which. let me clarify. is a GOOD THING. me seeing some vulcan practices as distinctly japanese and others seeing it as something else is #WONDERFUL and exactly what star trek is about. would just. love to see the diversity of responses i'd get if i asked what people saw in #vulcans. i know some of the specific jewish elements nimoy brought to the table in his characterization of him re: the rationalists and #kabbalists/the greeting being a blessing #but im not interested in canon #im interested in what people see of themselves reflected in the vulcans #as individuals #captain's log #trek #i forgot what i was talking about #im writing abt the genesis planet for a big secret ent project and referred to it in my head as the 'jesus planet' and then went. that's #rich for someone who just said that vulcan philosophy more closely mirrors buddhism than western religions #because its uhhhh where spock was resurrected #hi everyone #whats going on with all of you

[slowtumbling]

Get Out of Your Head and Into Your Heart

The Limitations of Human Rationalism “Cogito, ergo sum. Stultus es, quia cogitas? Hmm.” Descarte’s Question to Modernity Synopsis Rationalism while individually a noble concept has sometimes led humanity astray within the context of war and violence. Despite the advances in logic, reason, and humanistic ideals, history is replete with instances where this ideology has resulted in catastrophic…

View On WordPress

#cogito ergo sum #compassion #descrate #empathy #essay #Humanism #logic #philosophy #rationalism #rationalist #reason #thinking #thought #Violence #war

[philotreat]

Rationalist Philosophers Tutorial - YouTube

In this video, I explained about Rationalist philosophers- Descartes, Spinoza and Leibnitz, their theories of Substance, God and Rationalism.

#rationalists #philosophy #western philosophy #descartes #spinoza #leibnitz

[mitigatedchaos]

Kontextmaschine is Dead

(~1,000 words, 5m)

Noted blogger @kontextmaschine is presumed dead, following the discovery that the sole resident at his most likely residence was found deceased during a wellness check initiated by concerned Redditors.

Prior to his last post on Aug 22, which indicated a serious health problem, he reported taking over twice the dose of creatine he had been taking at the beginning of his lengthy post-COVID health saga, in which he also reported becoming bisexual, having "zero" anxiety, gaining 3D vision after years of not having it, becoming incredibly convincing, and having to learn to walk and use his muscles properly again. At the time, he felt he was becoming trimmer and physically stronger, and reported engaging in a long project of yard work, although photos from the inside of his house generally looked somewhat messy.

A Tumblr user who met him briefly in person after the beginning of the health saga but before these most recent events reported that he was friendly, charismatic, hospitable, and clean, but "physically, a mess," with motor control issues on one side of his body.

Topics of discussion were similar to the content of kontextmaschine's blog, such as differences in east and west coast government in America, said to be "totally on brand," but it was said that the prolific poster seemed "less self-grandiose" in person.

Redditors theorize that the decline of kontextmaschine's health following his first self-report of COVID-19 infection may have been due to undiagnosed brain cancer, which could be more consistent with observed changes in behavior than the after-effects of a viral infection, given that most reports of "long covid" are about effects like fatigue, and not total loss of anxiety or alteration of sexual orientation.

Despite multiple suggestions, from both anonymous and pseudonymous users, kontextmaschine refused to seek professional medical care for his condition.

Regarding the mourning of public figures, in 2018, a period of increased Progressive sensitivity during the Trump Administration, kontextmaschine wrote,

through the years realized that through whatever blind groping the ‘90s-ass “edgelords” were desperately trying to save us from this, through proper gatekeeping and filtering at first I’d thought it was gratuitous and supported it being relaxed, maybe not shaming everyone who publicly mourned a suicide, mea culpa, mea culpa, I have debts to pay

In 2019, he added:

That was how we kept the internet culture from growing mawkish and cry-bullyish: basically, if you were so weak as to get weepy over corpsemeat you got cancelled, the shame would follow you forever and you’d never be allowed to forget it.

Given his writing, it is likely that kontextmaschine would not have supported excessive public mourning over his death, though in 2017, following the theft of his motorcycle, when the popular blogger @argumate jokingly criticized him by writing, "no references to pinball, no insight into historical Americana, this isn’t the kontext I signed up for," kontextmaschine wrote,

“when bad shit happens people mock me accurately” is the community I’ve been looking for my whole life so

Like argumate, perhaps the most famous of the rationalist-adjacent bloggers on Tumblr, screenshots of kontextmaschine's Tumblr posts would end up on outside websites.

Kontextmaschine was generally considered an interesting, if controversial writer. One Tumblr user characterized him as a member of the "obnoxious Tumblr right," though another user asked, "wait, how is kontextmaschine is right wing?" After another user claimed that the nuclear bombing of Oregon would be a net improvement in the world due to kontextmaschine's residence in Portland, tumblr user @random-thought-depository wrote a 2,400 word theory post arguing that kontextmaschine's philosophy was a means to coordinate to join a future political coalition favoring the formation of a more brutal and oppressive hierarchy in pursuit of his own advantage.

Though kontextmaschine's ideology advocates that humanity should adopt "r-selection," meaning more offspring with less investment in each (or youth, sex, and death), this blog dissented against the coalition theory, arguing that motorcycles, kung fu, women, Hollywood, and not having to report to HR are all traditionally cool, and the causality of the kontextmaschine ideology could easily run the other way.

Though he had a period of identifying as female in his youth, appropriately LGBTQ for a Tumblr user, his 2011 statement of principles, including "the lesser yields to the greater" and "suffering is the mark of a wrong person," and general body of work, could be described as a strain of right-wing thought, though not of the traditionalist Christian or rational technocratic varieties.

Prior to the post-covid health saga, kontextmaschine's health posting was primarily about his bipolar disorder, with both manic and depressive phases.

Kontextmaschine maintained generally friendly relations with other bloggers in his sphere of discourse, sometimes debating but rarely aggressive, except in response to anonymous hatemail. In response to one particular piece of hatemail, kontextmaschine stated that as a writer, of course his primary form of influence would be his posts.

In a post chain reblogged by dozens of Tumblr users, multiple Tumblr users wrote that they enjoyed his writing and are disappointed by his death, describing him as a unique thinker that will not be easily replaced. Several felt that there was not much they could have done, as after returning from his covid infection, he was not taking medical advice.

One Tumblr user wrote, "rip. Inspirational manic poster," while long-time and prolific poster argumate described him as, "one of the bloggers of all time."

Internet users speculate that Kontextmaschine is survived by his outdoor cat, Badger, about whom he posted frequently. He may also be survived by other members of his family, with whom he apparently did not live, and rarely spoke about.

It is recommended that enthusiasts of kontextmaschine's blog make backups of his writing for archival purposes.

#tumblr tumblr tumblr #mitigated news #kontextmaschine #longpost #flagpost #obituary

[max1461]

Baffled by claims to the effect of "consciousness (in the sense of internal experience) doesn't matter/isn't real/might as well not be real because we can't measure it". True, we can't measure or detect it in an objective and repeatable way, as we'd very much like to be able to, but

That doesn't mean it's unobservable. I can observe it in myself. In fact I'm pretty sure I observe my own consciousness, very directly, every single waking moment. You'd be hard pressed to convince me it isn't there, about like how you'd be hard pressed to convince me my hands don't exist. It's right there!

Just because we can't measure internal experience objectively and repeatably right now doesn't mean we'll never be able to. Science abounds with things we couldn't measure until we could. Sure, maybe we'll just never be able to detect it in a way everybody can agree on... but maybe we will. It's a pretty strong claim to say with certainty that we won't.

This is probably the weakest objection of the three, but if consciousness is, you know, as good as bullshit... what is it that everyone keeps referring to when they talk about consciousness? And saying that they have? Uh like why, from the point of view that this consciousness stuff is Not Meaningful, does everyone keep going "I'm conscious"? Like what is the thing they are actually experiencing, if consciousness is a load of hooey?

I guess I just don't understand this position. It seems like denying what is plainly in front of your face. It seems, well, fiercely anti-empirical, to a degree even the big-daddy rationalist Descartes couldn't countenance.

To be super duper uncharitable, it sometimes seems to me like an ill-thought-through ingroup signal? Like "consciousness is a humanities thing, philosophy is a humanities thing, but I'm a Science Guy and we use measurement. Since I can't measure consciousness it is bullshit". And this ingroup signal leads one, as I said, to deny the basic empirical observation in front of them. Like, yeah, there is no objective and repeatable metric for pain either, but I think even the most hardcore Scientist would yowch and tell me to stop if I hit him with a big stick. I don't think he would say the concept of pain is meaningless because we can't (yet) quantify it objectively. And if he did claim that, I don't think he would live by it.

But, I don't know. Like I said, that is a massively uncharitable take. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the position. Or maybe I'm using the word "consciousness" differently. As I said, the thing I mean by this is internal experience, internality, the fact of there being some thing it feels like to be you.

#navel gazing

[sabakos]

Robot apocalypse cult?????

yeah the ones who congregate around Eliezer Yudkowsky, a middle school dropout and self-taught think, on a website called LessWrong. They call themselves "Rationalists" but not like... Descartes or Spinoza, mostly they think its possible to become rational by memorizing a lot about informal fallacies and cognitive biases. This is all in service of the fact that they think that superintelligent AI is going to doom us all, which may seem prescient given recent events, but unfortunately their plan to stop this is to build a different superintelligent AI first that will be "friendly" which will be accomplished by.... well, I'm not really sure they figured that out yet, because they mostly like to reason via thought experiments. They're often known for "roko's basilisk" which is a robot god version of Pascal's wager, which underwent a fairly severe Streisand effect after Yudkowsky tried to ban all discussion of it in the link above. Apparently he thought even the mention of this idea would risk creating unfriendly AI.

Rationalism mostly attracts engineering and computer programmer types, who are pressured to go into high-paying professions so they can donate as much money as possible to the cause of Friendly AI. It has strong ties to the "Effective Altruism" movement if you've heard of that. Sam Bankman-Freud and Caroline Ellison from FTX were also at least loosely affiliated with it. Also the whole fiasco with Sam Altman being temporarily fired from OpenAI was a result of members of the board being a part of this cult, and they tried to get rid of him because they didn't think they could trust him not to uh... make a superintelligent AI somehow? Unclear. They like to worm their way into important positions and cause problems so I suspect that they'll be making the news again for something unbelievably stupid and cursed in the near future.

Anyhow the ones who post on Tumblr mostly hate me for calling them all a cult a couple years ago (they're rather sensitive about that specifically for some reason) while I was criticizing the fact that they were bullying people into working harder and making more money all so that they could give it to Eliezer Yudkowsky. Some of the less culty and more chill ones are some of my Tumblr mutuals or follow me, which used to bother me to no end but I've accepted it as basically unavoidable given that I post about both AI and philosophy and like to argue with people. Honestly I don't know why they're all on Tumblr, but does anyone know they're on Tumblr these days?

[halogenwarrior]

I feel like the large amount of capital-r Rationalist Worm fans has really negatively influenced some people’s interpretations of Taylor and her motivations. I sometimes see people treating her as this sort of platonic idea of utilitarianism or whatever moral philosophy you think she subscribes to, whose strengths and flaws are entirely the strengths and flaws of that philosophy in its ideal form. And having read the “rational fic writing advice of Eliezer “famous Harry Potter fic writer and comparer of Taylor to Hillary Clinton” Yudkowsky I can see where this idea comes from, because this is exactly how he says characters should ideally be written. He says he dislikes “gray and gray morality” where everyone is shown to have their flaws and hypocrisy, instead he likes conflicts where both sides are truly good rather than gray and the conflict is that they are completely true to different philosophies of what good is. To some extent, he has a point in this; there are works that use the existence of hypocrisy and self-serving as a “cheat” out of and easy answer to a conflict that really is supposed to be a clash between two pure “good” philosophical ideas (Pokemon Black and White my beloathed...). But in the end, characters who are just platonic ideas of philosophies are for philosophical essays and tracts; literature is for portraying humans in all of their psychological complexity, sometimes self-serving motives, and ways that, due to their individual humanity, they aren’t just walking philosophical mouthpieces and don’t match up completely with an ideology.

That being said, Taylor is actually quite human (and a human teenager at that, with all the expected immaturity) in this way and from author comments it seems that this is completely intentional. She doesn’t simply state her belief that Benevolent Warlordism is Better than the Corrupt Current Authority throughout the story and spend the whole time as the embodiment of that ideal. Instead, she starts out wanting to be a hero, and then she has a complete failure of her typically paranoid mindset with regards to Coil (taking him at face value of wanting to improve the city even though every politician says that and look how that usually turns out) because it’s what she WANTS to believe, so she can keep her new friends after feeling isolated while morally sanctioning her actions, and then does a surprise Pikachu face when it turns out Coil actually does bad things and her support is helping him do bad things, then spends the next few arcs running around trying to fix the one bad thing she feels particularly guilty of. It’s only after already setting herself up as a warlord to fix said guilt, solely caring about Dinah with the people she saves being incidental, that she justifies herself as the lesser of two evils compared to the corrupt status quo, a lot of the corruption of which she didn’t even KNOW ABOUT before already going ahead and deciding she was going to be a criminal. I’m saying this with genuine love for her character and acknowledgement that she isn’t a horrible monster and does some pretty admirable stuff, especially given her age and situation, and she certainly was always cynical, paranoid and judgmental with a determination for justice even if she didn’t know all the details of what was wrong with her world at the beginning, but it’s ridiculous and detracts from understanding of her character as a character and not a rationalist talking point to see her as some pure philosophical ideal from start to finish who is never making up her ideology as she goes along.

#worm #parahumans #wildbow #Taylor hebert #rationalism

[writerbuddha]

Not just a Star Wars issue?

In 2020, a vibrant, colorful video essay appeared on YouTube, titled, “The Lion King Explained: Let the Darkness In.” To summarize its main conclusions: Mufasa was fundamentally flawed and his flaws resulted in his death and the fall of his kingdom. He refused to see and confront evil, ill intentions and darkness. He gave no means to Simba to deal with his severe trauma, or to address the unpleasant, apart from pushing it away. This resulted in Simba repressing his emotions and running away. His naive refusal to confront ugly truths left his kingdom weak and untested. What's more, he is an absolute and even god-like monarch, thus Scar's anger over not being king echoes valid critiques of his society’s injustice and inequality. However, his only solution is hate, anger and destruction. Only Simba, the young, conflicted, new king is able to confront the darkness that his father explicitly refused and denied to do so, becoming a better, stronger king, addressing the injustice and inequality in Mufasa's kingdom.

And what is one of the most popularized reading of Star Wars today? The Jedi lost their way, they turned a blind eye to the fact that the Republic is ruled by an oppressive elite, they gave no means to Anakin to deal with his severe trauma, they taught him to repress his emotions, they feared and ignored the dark side of the Force. Anakin turned to the dark side due to the Jedi neglecting and mistreating his traumas and teaching him to push away his emotions. He actually had a point, so does the Sith, but they offered only hatred, anger and destruction as an answer. Thus, the Jedi contributed to their own demise, which was sad and largely undeserved, but necessary. Luke, after proving the old Jedi Masters wrong in their black-and-white morality and thinking, by embracing his emotions, confronting the dark side, reforms the Jedi Order, which is stronger, better, more equal and healthy than the old one.

Can we point out a pattern here?

The old and their old ways created problems like inequality and injustice due to their black-and-white morality and thinking inherent to them, and now they're unable and unwilling to address and solve them, which ultimately causes their demise. Then, a young hero arrives: the old are trying to get him to suppress his emotions and continue their old, flawed ways. This young hero is traumatized or otherwise struggling with their mental health, that the old are systematically neglecting or even contributing to it and leading to severe consequences. Meet our villain: they actually have a point, however, the hero shouldn't follow their footsteps, because all they offer is rage, destruction, hate and so on. It's only the young one, who can surpass both emotional repression and anger, hate and destruction, who corrects and educates the system, the old ways and the old ones. 

I start to think that what we witness is a "Gen Z narrative" starting to invade fandoms, drowning out all the original messages and lessons of these stories, replacing it with "Old = fanatic, bigoted, dogmatic, black-and-white and myopic, and Young = progressive, tolerant, spectrum-thinker, rationalist, updated" - people almost compulsively trying to locate this new trope in the movies and books they love, because they need this view validated, they need their ego boosted, even if this means ignoring the actual stories they allegedly "fans" of.

This narrative is often tangled with Western-centrism: what was unknown to the West, was unknown to the world as a whole, thus, the Gen Z Hero, equipped with Western psychology, philosophy, values and cultural and social costumes, is inherently superior, communicates new, never seen before, life-changing revelations to the previous generations, wherever they go. And this seem to attract certain millennials as well.

It started somewhere around the mid-2010s and now it peaks.

Where will this lead us?

#luke skywalker #star wars #fandom #yoda #the lion king #gen z problems #tw trauma #jedi order #disney #star wars fandom

[radical-revolution]

What is the secret of happiness? Russell's answer —

”The secret of happiness is this: Let your interests be as wide as possible, and let your reactions to the things and persons that interest you be as far as possible friendly rather than hostile.”

Bertrand Russell, The Conquest of Happiness (1930)

” ... the world may be plunged in war, knowledge in some direction may be hard to achieve, friends may die. But pains of these kinds do not destroy the essential quality of life.”

The Conquest of Happiness (1930) by Bertrand Russell pre-dates the modern genre of self-help popular/philosophy by decades. This work presents Russell's rationalist prescription for living a happy life, mainly the importance of cultivating interests outside oneself and the dangers of passive and base pleasure. The Conquest of Happiness (1930) is often cited as one of Bertrand Russell's most accessible and favorite books.

Excerpts The Conquest of Happiness (1930) by Bertrand Russell

━━

”If you are happy, ask yourself how many of your friends are so. And when you have reviewed your friends teach yourself the art of reading faces make yourself receptive to the moods of those whom you meet in the course of an ordinary day.

A mark in every face I meet,

Marks of weakness, marks of woe

says William Blake. Though the kinds are different, you will find that unhappiness meets you everywhere.”

— Bertrand Russell, The Conquest of Happiness (1930), Part I. Causes of Unhappiness, Ch: I, What Makes People Unhappy?, p. 9

”The secret of happiness is this: Let your interests be as wide as possible, and let your reactions to the things and persons that interest you be as far as possible friendly rather than hostile. The world is vast and our own powers are limited. If all our happiness is bound up entirely in our personal circumstances it is difficult not to demand of life more than it has to give. And to demand too much is the surest way of getting even less than is possible. The man who can forget his worries by means of a genuine interest in, say, gardening, or the life history of stars, will find that, when he returns from his excursion into the impersonal world, he has acquired a poise and calm which enable him to deal with his worries in the best way, and he will in the meantime have experienced a genuine even if temporary happiness.”

— Bertrand Russell, The Conquest of Happiness (1930), Part II. Causes of Happiness, Chapter X: Is Happiness Still Possible?, p. 140

”I was not born happy. In adolescence, I hated life and was continually on the verge of suicide, from which, however, I was restrained by the desire to know only more mathematics. Now, on the contrary, I enjoy life; I might almost say that with every year that passes I enjoy it more. This is due partly to having discovered what were the things that I most desired, and having gradually acquired many of these things. Partly it is due to having successfully dismissed certain objects of desire — such as the acquisition of indubitable knowledge about something or other — as essentially unattainable. But very largely my current happiness is due to a diminishing preoccupation with myself.

Gradually I learned to be indifferent to myself and my deficiencies; I came to centre my attention increasingly upon external objects: the state of the world, various branches of knowledge, individuals for whom I felt affection. External interests, it is true, bring each its own possibility of pain: the world may be plunged in war, knowledge in some direction may be hard to achieve, friends may die. But pains of these kinds do not destroy the essential quality of life, as do those that spring from disgust with the self.”

— Bertrand Russell, The Conquest of Happiness (1930), Part I. Causes of Unhappiness, Ch: I, What Makes People Unhappy?, pp. 18-9

Image: A rather cheerful Bertrand Russell in his private study at his home in Penrhyndeudreath, Gwynedd, United Kingdom (1959).

[likealittleheartbeat]

hiyya!

this is something i've seen come up quite often in recent discourse about zuko, and about how he doesn't truly learn to let go of his prejudices linked to his upbringing by the final.

he is often criticized (i think rightfully so) for his treatment of aang in 'the southern raiders' ep: even though his actions may be fuelled by his desperation to make up with katara, and his own feelings of grief and anger, he is still too dismissive of (or one might say offensive towards) aang's advice and, consequentially, the philosophy of the air nomads.

in the final coronation scene, we see him acknowledge the fact that "the avatar is the real hero", and he swears to rebuild his nation "in love and peace", which definitely shows a fundamental change in his values. but. i wonder if he has matured enough to be able to respect aang as not just the avatar, but as an air nomad as well; if he has learned to appreciate not only his heroism, but his philosophy too.

i thought i'd ask your opinion on this since i really enjoy your reading of zuko and aang's relationship. how do you reconcile zuko's often dismissive nature with seeing him as aang's best friend and soulmate, the one who should be the most understanding of him?

thank you if you end up answering this, i'll really appreciate it!:)

I just think a reading of zuko as not fully reformed by the end is...just...a really bad faith take of a show all about hope and belief and (dare I say it?) FAITH.

What the Southern Raiders episode shows and is supposed to show regarding both Zuko and Katara in relation to Aang is NOT their total disregard for his culture but their need to experience and appreciate values of his culture for themselves, which is a core tenet of, at least, Zen Buddhism, but I'm pretty sure it's pretty significant to other Buddhisms and Taoism. Aang points to the moon of forgiveness, but if they were to simply take him for his word, they would have only seen his finger pointing and never have seen the moon he had hoped to show them by pointing towards it.

There is this kind of analysis that people do of ATLA and plenty of other shows that focuses on the dialogue and plot-explicit actions in a series with a literal and almost mathematical approach, ignoring the emotional beats, the narrative arcs, the figurative meanings, and the poetic experiences the show invokes. Often these kind of takes are sociological (focused on societal organizational structures and the identities they impose) and/or super rationalist (interested in the continuities and reasoning within a show as if a work of art and its characters must behave realistically). And they tend to be weaponized to denigrate a show or character (although both critique strategies could be and have been used to praise). The issue with both being used exclusively or even in tandem is how intellectual they are. They disregard emotional experiences for characters, for creators, and for the audience. I'm not inviting people to flip entirely to an emotional response--clearly I prefer a pretty intellectual approach myself. But a path that can bring in the heart and the mind into an analysis that is generous and wise ought to be the end goal, not necessarily of a single piece of writing but of your overall collaborative contribution to the analysis.

To get back to your question now, it's pretty hard for me to see Zuko, as the fucking emperor at his own coronation, saying that he should not be celebrated but instead giving the glory over to "the Avatar" as anything other than Zuko putting the value of humility so important to the air nomads into practice. And then we see him accepting help from Mai to put on his robe, serving tea to the gaang in Ba Sing Se (which demonstrates the reopened connections with the other nations), and naming his friendship with Aang, not the Avatar but Aang! Idk what more people want.

I have a guess, though. People want perfection. They want Zuko to jump beyond the limits of his narrative and history to be a political ideal that will never falter, that can say all the right words (somehow in the last five minutes of the series), that won't provide the springboard for the modernity that comes about in Korra. They want his "redemption arc" to be about "redemption" in the Christian sense, the deliverance from sin and its consequences into a post-show afterlife of purity. The purpose of the Avatar and the lesson Aang both learns and teaches his friends is about aiming for balance and the value of humanity. That is the key value he brings from the air nomads, and it's the one Zuko has integrated for himself by the end of the series. It doesn't mean he did everything right by Aang once he joined the gaang, only that he stopped demanding perfection from himself and others, easing the frustration and self-hatred that had plagued him. He also doesn't need to blindly agree with Aang or Katara's ideas just because they were marginalized by his people (and him directly lol), but Zuko's field trips are all about him observing and supporting others, which requires him to accept that he has more to learn and that's okay.

Humility is so unpopular in the discourse where I'm at rn because it's seen as self-effacement, when, in fact, humility has more traditionally been understood as acknowledging and expressing gratitude for the people, circumstances, and gifts that have allowed you to be in the position your in and have the chance, skill, and responsibility to act. Aang expresses humility in the choices he makes to acknowledge his culture. Zuko does this as he acknowledges Aang and the guiding force of the Avatar.

#atla meta #ish #aanglove