You must log in or register to comment.
What in the PR image rehab hell is this meme
fucking seriously
and I don’t envy either of them because I have something even more valuable: not being a Nazi
I’m not a fan of either, but I don’t think pewdiepie is even fascist adjacent. He made jokes in poor taste when he was younger and the internet rewarded edgy behaviour, I think it’s time to let it go.
I feel mixed feelings. I don’t think someone can silently be against war crimes and genocide. He seems less edgy. I like his new stuff. Still, he preaches about reading philosophy. He promotes reading books. You would think enlightenment would spark the desire to push change in the world. It’s a deliberate silence from one of the most influential people of our time. I just think he’s right wing at best.
kind of important what philosophy and books he’s promoting, and the one i heard of was a japanese ultranationist
Which one? Watsuji?
If so, his philosophy is surprisingly transcendent (as in, not ultranationalist). Somehow he kept his politics separate from his philosophy.
Reading Rinrigaku, it’s hard to understand how the person who wrote it could be a jingoist in real life. Unlike Sein und Zeit, where it’s readily apparent that the author was an unapologetic fascist.
The places where Watsuji diverges from and critiques Heidegger are really quite eloquent and crucial. Most critically, he rejects the “carpenter in a toolshed” analogy for his own concept of “betweenness,” using roads as the primary metaphor instead of tools. It’s far less reductive and more socialized, which isn’t surprising for someone from a collectivist culture.
Not sure how that turns into him supporting militant imperial fascism, but then again he didn’t really have a choice. But it’s not like he worked in secret to oppose it like those in the Kyoto School did, and even they got accused of supporting it…
one of the most influential people of our time
I’ve literally never heard of him. I mean I do live under a rock but if he was one of the most influential people of our time I would think even I’ve heard of him. Are you talking top 100 or top 1000?
And the thing about philosophy is that two people could have diametrically opposite opinions and both still be philosophers. There’s good philosophy and there’s bad philosophy, and even good philosophy can be wrong and bad philosophy can be right some times.
Philosophy isn’t a religion, its entire raison d’etre is centered around disagreement.
He had the most subscribed and most viewed youtube channel in the world between 2013 and 2017. I think it’s fair to call the most popular person on one of the most popular online platforms one of the most influential people, and if you were online in any mainstream capacity during those four years I think it’s a fair assumption that you have heard of him, even if that’s not the case here.
Looking over this list of books (https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/121751.Pewdiepie_s_Literature_Club_) he has discussed, it seems most of the philosophy he has discussed is pretty standard stuff. Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche. At a glance the only problematic thing I see is Jordan Peterson’s book, 12 Rules for Life. If you were worried that he was discussing problematic ideas, why not look it up instead of just casting doubt?
Frankly, disagreement is not the basis for philosophy. The basis for philosophy is a love (philo) of knowing (sophy). Being critical of your own thoughts and the thoughts of others can be a valuable tool toward improving or refining one’s knowledge, but things like practice, observation, and curiosity are arguably even more important for learning new knowledge.
Okay I didn’t know that about the subscriber count, so that’s a testament to my statement that I live under a rock.
Even if I looked him up, chances are I wouldn’t have found his reading list on goodreads, so thanks for sharing that.
Again though, two different philosophers could have very different interpretations of any of those philosophers. Some say Plato had elements of feminism, others say he was a blatant misogynist. Some say he argued for fascism, others say the Republic was an allegory for the self. Just because a person lists standard philosophers doesn’t mean they don’t have questionable interpretations of those philosophers.
Same thing with Nietzsche. One could say he was a radical libertarian or even an anarchist. That didn’t stop nazis from using his work to argue for eugenics and fascism.
If you were worried that he was discussing problematic ideas, why not look it up instead of just casting doubt?
Did I say that? I said I don’t know anything about him. All I said was that just cause someone reads philosophy doesn’t mean they’re an enlightened benefactor of humanity.
Frankly, disagreement is not the basis for philosophy. The basis for philosophy is a love (philo) of knowing (sophy). Being critical of your own thoughts and the thoughts of others can be a valuable tool toward improving or refining one’s knowledge, but things like practice, observation, and curiosity are arguably even more important for learning new knowledge.
I find that it’s impossible to pursue knowledge or understanding without disagreement. Whether you’re disagreeing with your peers, or with a classic philosopher, or with yourself, disagreement is the basis of the skepticism which allows one to reinterpret ideas or even come up with new ones.
Descartes revolutionized the philosophy of his era by disagreeing with those of previous eras. Heidegger revolutionized twentieth-century philosophy by disagreeing with the foundation premises of modern philosophy, namely those pioneered by Descartes.
Sophos doesn’t mean knowing, that would be episteme. Sophos is specifically wisdom, and being overly credulous by automatically agreeing with everything you hear is a foolish thing indeed. That’s why I said what I did about philosophy being about disagreement. Not that it’s impossible to agree with something and still do philosophy. But if you agree with something in its entirety without disagreeing on a single point then you’re not really doing philosophy, you’re just reading philosophy.
Didn’t he meet his partner because she was a fan or something? I think that’s the only story I’ve heard of a fan getting into a relationship with a YouTuber and it not ending up in the news as a cautionary tale.
I don’t know anything about the youtuber-fan relationships but you could meet a non-obsessive fan and find that something clicks between you two.
My ex’s sister ended up marrying a guy who started as a random Twitter follow because she thought his tweets were funny.
They might be one of the most fundamentally compatible couples I’ve ever met. I know correlation doesn’t imply causation… but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively.
