Hello, everyone, I'm Steven W. This is philosophize this. If you love the Show- and you want to contribute to an episode to keep it going for you comepatrison dot com, Slash Philosophizethis! Thank you to all the people that do that in regards to the Amazon Banner It has come to my attention that hidden deep within the bow so that long list of terms and conditions, everybody just clicks, agree to that closet said that you're not allowed to say that your Amazon banner directly supports any sort of specific blog or podcast, or anything for that matter. It's understandable I mean if I started a podcast and they got an Amazon banner design someone will align their brand with ISIS or even worse. This show. No. So if you're compelled to save the front page of philosophize dot org. There is Amazon banner, that you can click through and when you click through it it in no way at all supports this, show it don't even support me if I don't even know where the money goes. It's like one of those fountains in the mall. You can make a wish and you

change into it. Come on down to this dot, Org make a wish click through the Amazon banner and support nothing. Today's episode is part four in a series on Sartre and Camus, and I hereby vow to get part five out by the end of the month. I hope you have the show today. So if you don't follow on Facebook, Or you don't follow me on Twitter, you may be a little out of the loop in terms of the requests I've been receiving and what the immediate future this show is going to be. So I want to feel you you know at the end of the high degree episodes I said that the state of the world is always contingent upon the state of human thought that came before it and what I meant when I said that was whether we realize it or not. Everything one of us exists as a single point on a massive continuum known as the history of human thought. Whether we realize it or not so many of the straw convictions that we have things we think are just parts of our personality have been shaped and in many ways determined by the history of philosophical insights within this history of human thought. You know everybody has

particular way that they look at the world the way they look at economics and government and relationships and God and if you're, an honest person. This way of looking at things is always changing it, so growing, but the fact remains that any one point in time. We all have a particular way that we look at the world that we've deemed to be a sort of best practices in. Moment and for years of my life at least whenever I thought about this particular way that I looked at the world I walked around as if I had come up with it like it was all me like at some point, I locked myself in a closet and just thought about stuff really really hard for, years, and then I emerged with my way of looking at the world But what I realize is that Much of the way that we look at the world is actually this complex patchwork of philosophical insights that we've gleaned from all the books that we've read the teachers that we had the people we've met, cons a different thing, the point is whether we realize it or not. We were all born into a particular philosophical facticity, like we talked about last episode and this facticity,

greatly influences the way that we look at the world. Now. Maybe you listen to the show before? Maybe you come across a thinker that embodies some aspect of the way you look at the world. You know a single piece of that complex patchwork of ideas that you have but just statistically speaking, if you're a human being alive in the year. Twenty seventeen AC, we can portion of the way that you look at the world is going to be based on the main philosophical conversations that occured all throughout the 20th century. That's what I want to talk about for the next several episodes, because when you understand the origins of these philosophical lines of thinking what happens is you're given a pretty substantial gift? It's a gift. That is two fold it in at least that's I experienced it. First of all, I felt humbled because, finally, I was looking at my beliefs, not as this you know- elaborate art project, I'm working on for twenty years, and if somebody criticizes my beliefs, there, essentially criticizing me and my art project and, second of all, I felt this weird sense of Claire,

because when you turn on the tv and then you see the way that people are behaving and you take a step back and Plato's cave so to speak and just see the shadows on the cave wall for what they when you see what's going on, is a ripple effect of a you know, philosophical stone thrown into a pond last entry. It all starts to make a lot more sense. This is the gift that I'd like to give you over the course of the next series episodes and when I thought about where to begin. The first thing I realized we're going to need is a much deeper understanding of Sartre, much deeper than the one episode. I did on a more. I just briefly touched on freedom and responsibility. Look bottom line is fully understand. Sartre's concept of radical freedom and responsibility we have to understand, is phenomenology. Anderson's phenomenology, we have to understand and understand. We have to understand a long standing kind of annoying tradition in the history of philosophy that people are starting to get very sick circle of right around the time. The sergeant whose role this episode is a story, from philosophy that I'd like to tell you it's a story to bring context to everything. We've learned so far.

Context. I can never give when I was just doing chronological episodes, but nonetheless, it's context. We need to be able to understand the question. Doctor thought were worth answering during his time. Oh here we go. The story begins with Descartes godfather of Modern How many ways a story of Descartes is as old as philosophy itself he's a mathematician turned philosopher a mathematician fascinated by the level of certainty we can have when we say things like one, one equals two and he wants to try to emulate this process of mathematical certainty and apply it to thinking the goal being to arrive at certainty about things. You know his book rules for the direction of the mind he talks about, taking clear and distinct propositions and linking them together in the same sort of way. Mathematician might say something like okay. Well, one plus one equals two all right now now to plus five equal seven. We know that right. Okay, now, seven times, four equals twenty. Eight all right not stop. Let's, let's bracket all these clear and distinct profits,

as we have that allowed us to progress up until this point now imagine the same method applied to thinking, except instead of chaining numbers together, you're chaining, together, clear and distinct id is arriving at a level of certainty. Compara, Bulto, seven four equals twenty eight. That was the goal, at least so it's important to understand what day cards coming from with all this Descartes takes a look back. Almost two thousand years of philosophy that been done before he was alive and he's embarrassed quite frankly, Nobody agrees on anything. Nobody has any. Sort of solid foundation for what they're writing. It's all, just a bunch of smart people speed when volume. Volume of unverifiable speculation about things. Is this really what we want philosophy to be Descartes things that, where all these philosophers went wrong was in there method and by the way, this exact same sentiment applies just more generally to us in our personal lives, but he said so easy to just fall into the trap where you're super interested in something you want to feel like

about a topic so badly that your research it and you think about it for a while. You talk to people about it and then the strange very human thirst for knowledge takes over you want to feel like you know about it so badly that you end up getting in and just assuming that you know everything about it when they really a lot more to consider if you dug deeper into continue this math metaphor, it's like if you want to be done with the test, so. Just write, a bunch of answers that seem like they're about right, but actually go through and show your work of exactly how you got there is what philosophers have been doing well enough of that enough speculation, enough chaos in philosophy. We need certainty about things, and Descartes thought that, if we're ever going to rain it certainly about things. We need to be taking a much more rigorous, look at the methods that we're using to arrive at it even uses that word. You often talks about how awful

It should be looked at as a rigorous discipline. What we've been doing so far, it's been far from rigorous, let's just say so. Descartes lays down the gauntlet from this point forward. Let's all just agree on a couple of things under penalty of being laughed at, cast out the room relegated to the children's table at your next family reunion, so. There truly concerned with the quest for certainty shall henceforth never any claim that is not one so clear that there's nothing obscure about it and two so distinct that there's nothing confused about it, clear and distinct as clear, and as one plus one equals two. You can imagine these sort of hypothetical chains of ideas linked together by earlier philosophers. You can imagine propositions within their thinking. That may look today. Cart like two two equals five and then what happens is all the rest of the ideas that are built on top of that proposition come crumbling down. This is the error What's happened all throughout history. This is the World Day cards living in and here's how

Throwing down the gauntlet. Try to make sure it never has to happen again We need to arrive at certainty, but here's the thing about certainty. It's no joke! It's not enough, just to say two, two, basically, four one right close enough: no there's no close enough when it comes to certainty and if we're truly going to be rigorous. If we're going to arrive at a philosophical system based on certainty, we need to build it completely from scratch. We can't assume anything about it. Just as a given card says. We need to doubt everything even things that may seem a little bit silly when you're, initially downing them things, for example like whether or not we actually exist, can't even take that for granted and lucky for day card. He gets past that one pretty easily with his famous. I think, therefore, I am see if your

cart and main philosophers before and for that matter, the criteria for knowing something clearly and distinctly lies in whether we have a direct awareness of it, rather than some secondary level of awareness of it given to us by some other source, for example. Today, cart, when we ask the question whether or not we actually exist simply based on the observation that we're thinking about anything at all to him at the very least We must be some sort of thinking thing that exists. In other words, we have this sort of direct awareness of our existence present within our own lines, but, as you can imagine not everything. Is this straightforward, even things that may seem very straightforward, because on the other hand, the Descartes takes something like the existence of the physical world, for instance, I mean sure it looks like there's a physical world out there that we are all interacting with, but can we be certain about the things that we're looking at after all,

I know that our minds trick us all the time. Right I mean it happens, e you get stranded out in the desert, long enough, the hydrated hungry lack of sleep. You start hallucinating start seeing a Mcdonald's on the horizon. That Mcdonalds is actually there. You, you put a stick and some water. The stick looks bent, but the stickers and actually bent the conclusion here day. Cards as its only comes to the existence of the external world were not directly aware of the things that exist in the world were only directly aware of the way that they appear to us or the phenomena, as they appear to us. Important word there in this story from history. Anon. In other words, if you want to stay in keeping with this rigorous criteria, the day cards laid out trying to get to certainty about things. All we can really give with certainty is a description of the phenomena, not the actual external objects of the world, though they cut himself never talked about this process of describing phenomena. He just marks a distinction between phenomena and the objects of the world. That's his

contribution now. This idea, this idea that were something that aware of our own existence that can't be certain about anything else outside of our existence, is a textbook example of a way of look things in philosophy called solipsism. Now Descartes never would have thought of himself as a champion of solipsism. He has ways around it. He had an argument, for instance, where the existence of God was a certainty and that there, for God, would never deceive us plant in all the stocks in our head about a world existing for wasn't actually one. Nobody else was behind it, but the important part is the card. Got us back on track right. He laid down the gauntlet of certainty. Finally, for the first time ever philosophy had been turned into a truly rigorous discipline and yeah. Maybe they cartoon get too far at arriving at these clear and distinct propositions. He talks about, but at least now we're back on the right track well, the story of philosophy goes on. Time, goes on thinkers, come and go presenting theory after theory. And they certainly make some progress when it comes to these things that we can say with absolute certainty, but the next big breakthrough occurs when a guy comes

We talked about many times on the show before Mister will Kant again for the full explanation, go back and listen to the episodes, but because most of you probably already know what I'm talking about, here's the lightning Round Edition, just a frame things in this particular discussion. So all this listening, listen to this look at the world around. And we see a world that is solid, static and unchanging when in reality, if we put that table in front of you under electron microscope, you'd see that it was actually ninety nine point. Nine percent empty space and constant moving. What this tells us is that our senses weren't necessary evolve to be able to understand the fabric of reality itself, but really just to be able to map of reality. That does a good enough job that we can survive and reproduce better than others and, in particular, set of climate conditions. Seating chart made a mistake and Consise Descartes made the assumption that the

it didn't contribute anything to the phenomenon it was looking at. He sauce is just kind of these passive observers just taking it all in can't. On the other hand, says that when you take a closer look at the mind how it receives these phenomena, the mind actually contributes a lot to them Khan says that for all intents and purposes there are two distinct worlds that exist the world of things in themselves. That's the world out there beyond our basic map of reality that we're reading with our senses. And then there's a world of human experience, which is our map of the world, a world where our senses perceive these things in themselves and create phenomena that we organized his mental faculties, to be able to make sense of them this whole process producing for us, our human experience of the world. In other words, we are active observers, organizing and governing these are often on not just taking the And they can't, we can never know anything about this world of things in themselves. Only the world of human experience, but the next chapter in the story is that now you have post contents coming along saying: ok! Well, if we can't ever know anything about this world of things,

themselves. How can we know for certain there's more than one thing responsible for all these phenomena? How can we know that these things actually cause the phenomena, isn't causality, just a category of the mind? Actually, how can we know for certain that this world of things in themselves exists at all, and the answer is folks at this point in philosophy. We can't this is why can't referred to as a trance, pill. Id list he's one of the first members in a long standing tradition in philosophy, known as idealism or the that all of reality, or at least as we can possibly know it- is non material and a construction of the mind. In other words, we can't know for We can't just assume that there are these material objects existing in some hypothetical external world that are causing these phenomena were experiencing all that we can be search about, is what's going on in our minds again. Certainty is what we're going for. We have to adhere to this rigorous set of criteria laid out by Descartes. Now, at this point, some of you probably out there thinking. Ok, what are we doing here really, what

Actually are we doing with philosophy? Look would take her question whether we actually exist or not. It was a fun thought experiment, but Khan did it a respected the man's tenacity, but at a certain point, but we can't know whether physical things actually exist. How ridiculous is that what the Constantinople take him aside and sit him down and say, son, look! Yes, there is in that room all day doing your finger painting wondered whether the war exists or not. I got a newsflash for you, son. It does look, see table. Oh hey! Look over here. It's a newspaper, it's real! Hey! Oh it's the classified section! Now you can get a real job, it's real! Like real stuff! Don't you know, of course this isn't exactly how it went, but I mean you can start to make you think Look I admire the whole quest for certainty thing. I understand what you guys are trying to do, and I appreciate it but at a certain point I have a life to lead. I have kids to play football with. I have a job

go to? I can't sit around all day wondering whether a material world actually exists or not. Look All four certainty- and I understand you very well- may be right. We may only have our thoughts. The universe itself may in fact be just one giant thought, but just the fact that it's been this, long, and you can't even confirm one of the most intuitively obvious things about existence. I'm worried about you worried you might be wasting your time and, more importantly, I'm worried wasting my time now, if anybody out there is ever felt this way over the course of listening to the show you're not alone, because as the story continues right around the 19th century, thinkers started to emerge that were very sceptical of not just this long standing tradition of looking for about things? But more generally, this long tradition of philosophers, assuming that it's possible to use reason to just reason our way to solutions about every problem we could ever face as a species. We're going to reason to start thinking about things were going to reason to the ideal form of government were going to reason to uh delete scientific world picture. There was a sense at the time that

kind of thinking was sort of outdated kind of missed, Algic old Philos, that, for so long we've tried to reduce everything into these pre packaged little rational categories. We've done it's so much of these categories would become more important to philosophers and the things that make them up. Even human beings, for example I mean, along with this old philosophy, went an outdated way of rationally categorizing human beings. We've talked about many times on the show. You know this long tradition of seeing well as merely aspects of some larger whole as merely children of God's kingdom or merely members of a state went that way. Thinking we started to think thinkers emerge like Kirk, a garden Nietzsche people that took a look at what it is to a human being more in terms of what it is to be an individual, a relatively modern concept in human history. Now, of course, this wasn't the only way people were looking at the history of philosophy, but this is the way Sartre was looking at it. There's this feeling that maybe this trajectory philosophy brought about in the 17th century had been off the rails for a long time.

Quite frankly, was completely devoid of value? There's this feeling that if we ever want to make any sort of progress in the future, we need to do something radical something fundamentally different than we ever had been doing. Then, along comes a powerful character into history to shake things up the mad scientist, for role early in his career, on the same page as he's 19th century thinkers. That believe something radical needs to be done, and this exactly trying to do with his early work he's not satisfied. With idealism being some sort of final destination, and he wants to do something radical. He wants to tweak our methods of looking at these phenomena, study the very structure consciousness and arrive at a certainty that includes an external physical world, among other things. In other words, this rigorous discipline of philosophy just got an extreme makeover and

now. Where would agree, you only want to spend every second of your life doubting whether the external world exists or not. Just 'cause philosophers haven't arrived at some definitive proof of it. It would be ridiculous to imagine if everybody adopted that strategy. What would that look? Like well for one, nobody in the history of the world would have ever conducted a single scientific experiment. How can you do an experiment on a world? You have no reason to believe actually exist. Just imagine if we never conducted science just because philosophy had never arrived at a method that was going to guarantee. We were never mistaken. Now, science doesn't agonize over the idea of never being mistaken, like Descartes, did science isn't in the business of certainty, it's in the business of coming up with a yes, largely incomplete, yes, tremendously lot, but profoundly useful, set of insights that help us understand things a little bit better, just 'cause. It's not certainly doesn't make it not useful and again in a weird way. If scientists were out there trying to look for complete certainty, that would be able to get anything done.

Coastal makes a distinction between these two very different ways of orienting yourself to the world, both of which are useful in his eyes, by the way on and we have. The phenomenological attitude sometimes called the philosophical attitude. This is the former one. This is Descartes Scotland. This is the rigorous method of looking for certainty. The one hundred percent honest way of looking at things doubting everything, including your own existence and then proceeding with and from there there's that way of orienting yourself to the world and on the other hand, we have what he calls the natural attitude or the sort of default way of orienting yourself to the world the way of looking at things that all science is conducted through or cereal says the way of looking at things. It starts with several big presuppositions but nonetheless allows us to continue on with our daily lives or scientific inquiry without being paralyzed by this quest for certainty all the time. These are two different ways of approaching the world scientists. Don't doubt the kind of things who strolled out when he's looking for certainty, they don't doubt things like whether there's actually a correspondence between the thoughts I'm having in the ob

perceiving they don't doubt things like whether the mind itself is something that even capable of arriving at objective facts. Yet they conduct scientific experiments. Assuming these things are in their favor and it makes sense whose role would say that it's just simply useful when you're doing scientific experiments to doubt whether the mind is something even capable of arriving at objectivity again, if you get too caught up on certainty, it sabotages your very ability to do. Science. Science is not certainty. This is the point whose rules making the phenomenological attitude and the natural attitude are mute. Exclusive, it's impossible to look at the world in both ways simultaneously, for example, eight everyday person immersed in the natural attitude might go down to the library pick up, some whose stroll they might read 'em they might contemplate how they can know anything Maybe they even employ a few of his methods. It takes the sort of recreation, I will swim in the phenomenological attitude, but when they're done reading the How can they leave the library and going about their day? They're, not still

whether the world actually exists or not. Now, let's same note, you can be the world. Die hard phenomenologist, let's say you work. Nine hundred to five hundred is a professional phenomenologist. Similar look at Bell rings and you're taking your union standardized break your nose sitting around in the break room wondering whether the vending machine over there is just a mental construction or not practicing phenomenology. Is practicing a new way of seeing the world and the things that make seeing the world possible at all and where would say, yeah it's definitely possible for somebody to go way too far down this rabbit hole the philosophical attitude sitting around all day, yelling at people well well, you'll know you, don't even know if you exist or not so so How can you say that I thought that candy bar and and that's It would be a waste of time right, but be careful as you can go too far in the other direction too, you can spend your entire life writing off these sort of pointless arm, chair, philosopher questions and go on for the rest of your day is never really thinking about the presuppositions of the natural latitude and honestly believe

thing that what you're looking at is you walk around in everyday life is objective reality. There are people out there that talk about what we see as human beings as though it is objective. Reality example, everyone know there are certain big famous celebrity proponents of science, who are, by their own admission, proudly willfully ignorant of philosophy, and these people will say that philosophy is essentially useless in today's world because it's been replaced by a better, more dynamic system called science that does everything philosophy used to do except better. Now these people are, a perfect example of what it looks like to go away too far down that rabbit hole of the natural attitude I mean, I mean just bill, Nye, not realize that if it wasn't for philosophy, he just be Bill Nye, the guy, like I mean seriously, these people bill Nye Neil Degrasse Tyson. Stephen hawking all these people that are proud of the fact. They've never read philosophy, and yet they have

We throw around these terms like objective reality and objective truth and facts. These people, one of the few things, has to be true about them. Either they've never considered things like the limitations of their senses, the limitations of human knowledge. All the assumptions present in the natural attitude which, given how little philosophy they've claimed of red is, is worrying or the more charitable reading the reading, I forced myself to believe, as I sit in the core neurotically rocking is that maybe they have considered all these boundaries between themselves and objectivity, but they use terms like objective truth because they see themselves as engaged in this war against religion and they feel like they need to be a direct substitute to it. In other words, maybe it's all a strategy is what I think it is like. Maybe they're not lost in the sure latitude, maybe they see that human beings are these things that really seem to enjoy, having all the answers and harnessing objective truth and then legend tells them? They can find those sort of answers in the book of Genesis, so in order to compete with that, let's sort of gloss over all the limitations of science and human beings, ultimately after and

science and let's proceed as though our method is the real method arriving at objective truth. What I'm saying is when you go too far down This natural attitude rabbit hole, and you start looking at this stuff as though it is objective truth. It starts to look eerily familiar. You know like in the 1400s, you had a priest that were a big robe and he conducted a ritual edit, alter any spoke to God and told you what the objective truth of the universe was. In today's world, you have a scientist wearing a big robe, a lab coat, conducting a ritual, an experiment at an altar, a laboratory speaking to the universe and telling you what the objective truth about it is you never go full

natural attitude is what I'm saying, but back to the story. Now, as you can imagine, when word gets out that who sells come up with this new method of phenomenology, that may give us certainty about an external physical world and much more by the way it starts to attract a lot of aspiring philosophers that see it as one piece of this radical change, we're going to make a philosophy if we want to move forward. One of these thinkers who became a student whose rule was named, Martin Heidegger, another one was named John Paul Sartre now in an unexpected turn of events. Hey turn that many official students couldn't even fully understand right around the middle of who throws life. He does sort of an about face with astronaut. He takes it in the same direction. So many other things before him took it. He loses faith in his early work and he becomes an idealist now some students followed along with whose role adopting his new work, but other students were like no, no, they thought sure whose rule this early work is far from perfect, but look it can be next few clarifications. Over there

and over here this is gonna, be solid. Maybe that's what all work on to the thinkers that were part of this group were Heidegger and Sartre no hi to her, as we talked about disagreed with some pretty critical aspects of whose real, not the least of which was the entire idea of consciousness at all again, why do we need to think about ourselves like day Kerr did back in the seventeenth century like we're subjects, acting upon objects or more modern spin consciousness. Acting up on things in the world know to Heidegger. We have reasonable basis for making that sort of assumption being and the world are a unified. Thing that are fundamentally inseparable from each other will start to read Heidegger and he's convinced Heidegger's right. We have no basis for assuming that we are subjects acting upon objects, he's right being and the world are unified thing, but Sartre leaves room for consciousness to Sartre its consciousness and the world that are fundamentally inseparable,

sister takes a look at this long history and philosophy. We've been talking about this whole episode and he realizes something the everyone seems to have is being able. Explain how things work up in this strange box inside of their head, that they seem to be trapped in they. They have this factory up in their heads called consciousness or whatever word they used for and they have this receiving dock that takes in these semi trucks. Full of phenomena and these phenomena are sent down, conveyor belts and the disenfranchised blue collar workers, organize and categorize them and turn him into this crude map of the world that they ship out the other side of the factory to us. So we can perceive the world but think about what we talked about last time. Consciousness is not some empty container or some the factory in our heads waiting to be filled up with perceptions now for this phenomenon will just look at consciousness. The more they see it as more of an activity than some mysterious thing up in our heads. Remember consciousness is always actional doing something and referential pointing towards something there's no such thing as some empty consciousness out there. So you start

it's different from whose role like when who still doing this phenomenology he's super focused on the task of figuring out what everything is and the way he does. This is through various methods like the eidetic reduction. We talked about in Heidegger part what whose rules interested in doing in his work is just Things in the world in terms of these universal essences that he arrives it through the eidetic reduction, but remember starter, doesn't come from that school of thought. In fact, he'd see that whole process is just a misguided extension of this outdated old philosophy, or we thought we could think about everything in terms of these neat categories in universals. No soccer is more focused on the individual and he thinks he can't ever know everything about an individual simply by looking at in terms of what universal essences intersect by them. For example, it's so tempting to think that if we could figure out what the essence of something is, we would

what it is. If we had a piece of wax, we did. The eidetic reduction arrived at its universal essences that we have, since we figured out what it is to be that thing, but sort of says, no, that that's incomplete, that never tells us full story there's a famous argument that he hasn't being and nothingness where he quotes a passage from a biography of the french author Gustav Flaubert and he's looking at how ridiculous it is at the biographer. This writing. It is trying to explain this ecology of Flaubert the psychology of a human being by using this sort of process of appealing to a bunch of universals, he says quote a critic, for example, wishing to explain. The psychology of Flaubert will write that he quote. In his early youth to know as his normal state a continual siltation, resulting from the two fold feeling of his grandiose ambition and his invincible power, the of essence of his young blood was in turned into literary passion, as happens about the 18th year precocious souls we find the energy of style or the intensities of fiction some,

escaping the need, a violent action or of intense feeling which torments them, in quote, you can see with the buyer, is trying to do here right, He's trying to get his own psychoanalysis of Gustav Flaubert and the things that happened in his youth then ended up causing him to get into writing. Starter goes on quote in this passage, there's effort to reduce the complex personality of an adolescent to a few basic desires, as the chemist reduces compound bodies to merely a combination of simple bodies? The primitive givens will grandiose ambition, the need of violent action of intense feeling these, when they enter into combination, produce a permanent exultation. In quote just listen to that look at that comparison. He draws there were trying to break this person. In the same methodical way, a chemist reduces compound bodies to merely a combination of simple bodies. He says quote at each state in the description just quoted, we meet with a hiatus Why did ambition and the feeling of his power producing Flaubert, Xlt,

and rather than tranquil, waiting or gloomy impatience. Why did this exultation Express' itself specifically and the need to act violently and feel intensely or rather, why does this need make a sudden appearance by spontaneous generation at the end of the paragraph, and why does this Instead of seeking to appease itself and acts of violence by amorous adventures, Orinda botch choose precisely to satisfy itself symbolically, why is full bear turned to writing rather than to painting or music for the symbolic satisfaction he could just as well not resort to artistic field. At all quote, I could have been a great actor wrote Flaubert somewhere. Why did you not try to be one word, we have understood nothing. We have seen a succession of accidental happenings of desire springing forth fully armed one from the other, with no possibility for us to grasp their genesis. In quote, this brings us to the end of the story to the place. Archers writing his philosophy from what. If this old style philosophy,

was severely misguided. What, if understanding the universal essences of things, isn't enough to fully understand them? What if we don't have some consciousness factory up in our heads with these mysterious phenomenon that leave us unable to be certain about anything but ideas? What if consciousness in the world, are a unified thing fundamentally inseparable, and when you start to think about it, this way, what is conscious is like shining a flashlight into a dark room, revealing only a small portion of what would otherwise be concealed, except it's more than that imagine there was slash like causing the white race, metaphorically speaking. What? If what we are, are the light rays revealing a portion of an otherwise dark room, pure awareness of things in the world? What is the idea that we needed a flashlight to produce light rays where there was a barrier between us in the world, but if that was an assumption, we've been making all along and as we prepare for next episode, we talk about more the details of starters, phenomenal,

and, more importantly, how it effects the way that we should look at ourselves. Our lives and the things that we all care about. Starter would want us to consider what, if we our consciousness, and what, if consciousness, is radical freedom and responsibility.