Overwhelmingly fun fire show. Well, our Jeon Mingi doesn't use his brain at all, doesn't worry, doesn't think, so this time is precious. We need to rinse our brains with philosophy once. Right, you know, right? Among the viewers, there are probably many people like me. No, so, don't judge them, don't judge, don't judge. I thought it was a pack chain. No, just talk about yourself. So, now, it's time to rinse your brain with philosophy for those who completely neglect their brains like Jeon Mingi. Let's do this together now. Philosophy, it's been a long time. You've been very busy these days, Professor Park Gyu-yong. Welcome. Hello, I'm Park Gyu-yong. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. You seem very busy. And you're going to Germany for the whole month of August, right? Yes, not for a trip, but to research. What research are you doing? Lately, I've been interested in researching peace.

There are two philosophical debates on the theory of war, and I want to research the origins of the theory of war. Oh, I can't understand anything, so this is not verified. I need to ask a question here to make it impossible to move. Is it that war continues to repeat? I can only understand that the question itself cannot be asked. Can we talk about something related today? What have you prepared for today? First, let me ask you a question. Who do you think loves South Korea the most in South Korea? For example, who loves South Korea the most? The person who loves it the most, in their opinion. Then everyone has their own... However, I have experienced many organizational activities.

I have tried various clubs and organizations at universities, and one thing I always feel is that when a person becomes the representative of an organization, their love for that organization suddenly grows. Oh, that could happen. It's amazing. When someone becomes the representative, for example, if Choi Guk thinks about who Choi Guk loves the most, well, if you measure it, maybe if you do a blood test, I would probably come out overwhelmingly. So, thinking of oneself as the representative is natural. This is not just a thought. Objective data will come out. Will it come out? But then, we have to ask them, for example, who is the most loved person in South Korea. Then, I could say President Yoon Seong-yeol. Since he represents the country, one can naturally have such feelings. In fact, I think so.

I've been trying to believe in it so far, but that's not it. Because now, everyone is spreading it in Japan. Why? Because they haven't seen anyone who couldn't do it. So far, oh, no, there hasn't been anyone who couldn't do it. I've never seen it. For example, if someone becomes the head of the Taekwondo Association, they would probably love Taekwondo the most. Even I think that's the case. It's like becoming the head of the Marine Corps before and after. Even when I play tennis, when I'm active in the tennis club, if I become the president of the tennis club, suddenly that loving feeling grows. I think anyone would feel that way. I haven't seen anyone who doesn't. But if there is someone who can't do that either, that would be serious. For example, in extreme cases, in extreme cases, let me give you an example. Let's say a father wants to divorce. He talks to his wife. His wife wants a divorce. The reason is domestic violence. The husband's domestic violence. Note that the wife...

I said I want a divorce, but what this man keeps saying continuously is, I truly love my family. So, he says he genuinely loves his family. Even if he is trash, that's how he shows his love for his family. So, he says he genuinely loves his family, even if he resorts to violence against his wife, he is convinced of it. He excludes his actions. Besides resorting to violence, he might do things like making a lot of effort for his wife in other ways or doing things for the children. Then, the question the wife wants to ask at this point is, Do you love the family or the family members? So, healthy family love means loving the family members, not just the concept of family, right? That's how it is.

Loving each family member is considered normal family love. Oh, the discussion you just mentioned is very common sense. Even that doesn't apply. Then, loving family members is the most desirable form of love, right? Even if the next step is not ideal, we should love our family, as it is an institution. Even if it's a system. However, if it's difficult to even confirm that, it's a serious issue. The reason I think this country is in danger is because of this point. So, how can we confirm it? How can we confirm it if it's not about family members or family systems but only about loving oneself? Isn't it risky even at this stage? It seems like there's no self-love. Right, yes, this is a very serious situation. We are in a serious crisis overall.

So, in order to look at this problem, there is a philosopher that conservative parties in Korea relatively like, and also people who have conservative views worldwide tend to like. People who are not generally known as philosophers, right? Economists, the father of economics, who is that? The father of economics, you know that much, right? Because you don't know, you're skipping over it. Oh, I don't know this either. I'll do it. Adam Smith, right? Ah, Smith. Really ignorant, this person. Adam Smith, you know. Knowing the role, knowing the role. Even Sam Smith knows. Adam Smith. Yes, this person is often thought of as an economist, right? Known as an economist, but actually, the first subject he taught at university was what? Logic. Oh, really? Yes, and philosophy.

He mainly taught, and his first written book is called The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which is a moral theory. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, for example, and later on, we wrote a book called The Wealth of Nations. Do you know what The Wealth of Nations is about? Well, if you say that it is the father of economics, that would be precisely wrong. What do you think is the biggest difference in economics, if you think about it? Economics, then why do philosophers study economics? So, until now, philosophers have been studying economics. One of the important subjects in philosophy is economics. Economics, economics, economics is a branch of philosophy. So, until the time of Adam Smith, and what about us? Actually, Adam Smith, who represents conservative liberalism, wanted to be called a social philosopher. In fact, philosophers have been doing

There are different departments, but you need to learn some knowledge, so economics. So, Adam Smith is called the father, but Adam Smith is not the father. Ancient Aristotle, Plato, Xenophon, all famous philosophers, have economic theories. So, what's the difference? Economics divides all economies now. So, to divide, there should be criteria. What is it, really? If you don't know this, you might as well just go home. In my opinion, that's how I see it. I think it's better to go home if you don't know this. I think you should study in advance. What should I prepare? For me, the only corner I don't study is this and movies. Economics is based on units where production and consumption are completed. So, in the past, the unit where production and consumption were completed was the family. It was the family, right? So, back then, back then, so in family economics, basically, how the family economically...

So, the family is originally an economic community, and how to manage and expand production and consumption within the family is the subject of economics. Then, in modern economics, the most important unit of all economics will change, right? What will change? It's about what in society, the nation, or what in the family, what will businesses be. Yes, starting from the family, oh yes, if you know, just do it. I've already said something ignorant, it's not businesses, right? That's right, I was right. Oh, I should have said that earlier. Mr. Choi, you need to see the truth, right? So, the unit where production and consumption are completed changes from the family to the nation, right? It changes to the nation. That's why it's national economics. So, it's about the nation, right? And it's about the citizens, right? It's about the birth of national economics. Adam Smith said a famous phrase in national economics, you know, the invisible hand. The invisible hand only appears once and not much.

Not well-known, but what people who don't know say, and the most famous saying is, Why can we sit at the dining table we learn tonight? Where did it come from? That's it. What's the reason we can eat lunch deliciously today? It's about where we could welcome this abundant table. Market quality. I've never laughed so seriously, but recently, oh, it's the same level. Ah, now I feel refreshed. Where did the ability to eat lunch deliciously come from? People who bake bread or brew alcohol. Those people. But having such incorrect knowledge, you need to come out appropriately according to the situation. It's like just coming out without considering it. I'll consider it a bit, so today, all the people who make things on the dining table, have come out of mercy, right? In mercy.

Is it because of self-love, or is it because of their self-love that they should pursue profit? That's right, that's the key point of nationalism, the most famous part. In the beginning, it comes out like that, so when you say self-love in English, it's self-love. It's self-love. It's self-harm. It's self-compassion. It's self-harm. So, in translating, I think it's best to translate it as self-love now. If possible, we should try to use our language. Instead of using Chinese characters, let's use our language. Compassion is also compassion. It's a word for compassion. It's love for others. But that phrase doesn't fit well, it doesn't fit well, that's why. So, self-love, then. If there is self-love, then what is the most fundamental thing for a wealthy nation to celebrate wealth? It's self-love, that's what it is. So, what is self-love then?

What does love really talk about? Self-love is not the same as self-interest. It seems that it will vary for each person, right? If capitalism pursues self-interest and self-love, they are not the same. It seems that it will vary for each person, right? If capitalism pursues self-interest and self-love, they are not the same. If capitalism matures in pursuing self-interest and self-love for the foundation of oneself and one's interests, when capitalism matures, productivity develops. At that time, you know your self-interest. You know your self-interest easily and quickly, right? Then, what is self-love? That's right, self-love. Self-love also has boundaries. There will always be boundaries. Then, what is self-love? That's right, self-love. Self-love also has boundaries. There will always be boundaries. Then, what is self-love? Basically, you can negotiate everything else for your self-interest. You can give up other things for your self-interest. However, self-love sets one thing that can never be transferred. In a capitalist society, what is that? It's something you can never give up. Abstinence. It's something you can never transfer. This is the subject of the contract.

No, what is it? Think about the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. What you cannot contract with, what is not in the Civil Code, what is it? Yeah, what is it? Why are you so ignorant? It's too difficult. It includes physical guidance, including the body. It includes the body. So, it's directly related to personality. Personality. Oh, personality is not the subject of a contract. Among personalities, there is a physical aspect. Just like what Mr. Choe Wook just said. Then, what is called self-love is never treating oneself as an object. That's the biggest point. Treating oneself as an object. Yes, yes. However, recently, the President of the ruling party and the President's constant exercise of veto power are connected. And this incident is also related to the Hwangsan incident. After that, they exercise the veto power and then have a retrial. When they win, they applaud. Korea.

Members, Park Ga, so, and so, and then, so, why do we auction at that time? Why does this make us uncomfortable? Why is it uncomfortable? It's because we feel that our minimal sense of ethics has been violated. So, according to Adam Smith, who wrote about ethics, where did the norms of today come from? What about reason? What is rational judgment? It is said that these are not necessary. Basically, humans have a sense of ethics. That's right. Even though we have no relationship, we hope that other people will do well or not. Generally, we hope that things will go well. If there is no special relationship with me, I hope things go well for those who have no special relationship with me. However, if a relationship is formed, it can change a little.

However, what is greater than the desire for success is feeling sad when others are unhappy, feeling sad when others are unhappy. We become immediately important without knowing that we are unhappy. It's an immediate sense, an immediate sense. This is what Adam Smith is directly expressing. It's about immediate sense, sensitivity, and immediacy. What does this mean? You don't need to think and reflect on it. When others are in pain physically, the feeling immediately comes to you. This is not about following norms. That's why we talk about this. There are many people who cry when you are sad, right? Because there are many people who will cry beside you when you are sad. But

When I have good news, there is no one to smile with me. Not much. Why? Because jealousy kicks in there, so when sad, crying for others is not obligatory, it's just an immediate reaction. So, for example, even people who have committed serious crimes cry together when they hear sad stories. Yes, this is unusual to the extent that even the most wicked people, extreme lawbreakers, when faced with others' pain and suffering, immediately sense and feel it. This is the source of moral sentiment, you know. If this is damaged, what happens? I am saying that in this country, the ruling power is losing this sense. Oh, that's why this fight is a fight against insensitivity. Then it's really difficult. It's hard, isn't it?

It's a battle with no sense. For example, let me talk about the story of the Mu Gam Sado Mine. Everyone hears about the policy decisions being made, right? Then, those ancestors who suffered, yes, remembering that. When anyone, even slightly obsessive, momentarily recalls losing their country and being dragged away as a hostage, they suffered. That moment is short-lived because it's also tough for me. If you can't endure for long, make it short, right? So, most people, without even realizing it, immediately make moral judgments and legal and political decisions based on that obsession. The level of immersion may vary, but it may vary. For example, Choi Byeong-sa was the same, and Itaewon Class was the same, and the Sewol ferry disaster was the same. However, in cases like this, there is that sense in the middle.

If it's short, it's short but immediate and intense. However, when someone comes in the middle, not just saying shh to the child, there are also unfair commanders and unfair people. Oh, Japan must have its own perspective. They come in the middle and ask me to make a decision to help them in some way. They hope for political consideration or help. Personally, when that happens, people have to decide which side to take. Which side to support. For example, in the case of Choi Hae-kyung or Choi Byeong, or when facing the Hwangsan incident, Japanese people have their own justifications. They have their own reasons for what they have done. There will be people who represent this position. In politics and diplomacy, listen to that person's story. Or should Commander Choi really receive such a severe punishment? Just how.

Could you please help me out a bit? Someone must have made a decision based on hearing these stories, right? Probably around 30% of them, right? So, what kind of feeling is it to be swayed by what these people say? What kind of emotion is it? For example, someone might say that there will be someone asking Choi Yook for a favor. They might ask him to appear on a show or something. There's nothing unfair about it, but even though they don't feel particularly wronged, they might feel somewhat unjust. In that case, when someone directly asks them for a favor, what do they feel when they refuse the request? It feels like something is being damaged, right? What is being damaged is the overblown fantasy about oneself. It's only the sense of power being damaged. It's not because they couldn't help others. When you see a person, it's not about what they are asking, but about your own influence.

It's uncomfortable to show that you don't have it, so this is purely about overwhelming immediate and sensory feelings, there is nothing but a sense of power over oneself. This person has gone to some extent, falling into self-delusion to the point of abandoning oneself. Oh, falling into self-delusion to the point of abandoning oneself, oh, that could happen. For example, falling into grandiose delusions to the point of losing one's love. So, receiving two hundred due to lack of money is not about that. Well, frankly, what I was most curious about was not receiving it due to lack of money. No, it's about receiving it in a state of grandiosity. Oh, it's the same because of grandiosity. So, not wanting to be damaged by claiming to be a great person, not wanting to be damaged by claiming to be a tremendous person, oh, that's grandiosity, that's grandiosity. The only thing is power and oh.

Power is convenient, and philosophically speaking, it's a kind of objectification of oneself. Objectification, objectification. It's about regulating oneself. So, using self-regulation, you feel the crown itself. It's not about feeling like a king, but becoming the crown. In this state, this is the most pulsating state. Is this about having senses or not having senses? Not having senses. In that case, there are no senses, no senses. It's a fight with the direct power without senses. And this is a very difficult fight. Not only a difficult fight, but the most painful fight. Any reason, and then rationality, are not accepted at all. They don't work. After the fight is over, the most painful part for everyone who tries to testify is that they have to testify with the unbearable pain that cannot be remembered.

The person who is not accepting the testimony right now has lost their sense. Oh, it's difficult to support someone who has lost their sense. Oh, they have no sense about the Sewol Ferry incident. They have no sense about Itaewon. It seems like they lack any sense. They are in that position because they lack a sense. Or did they go to that position to lose their sense even more? I don't know well, but if it's to this extent, I think they originally didn't have it, they have already lost it for a long time. The reason for this is that when I see the actions of the prosecutors now, it seems like they are somewhat numb to their position as prosecutors. I wonder if they have to lose their sense in order to carry out their activities as prosecutors. I even have such thoughts. So, about the prosecutors now, not all of them, but some of them seem to be like that.

It's the same, and now it's causing us a lot of pain. Currently, the root of the pain is being ruled by people who have lost their senses due to numb people. However, the so-called leader, who lacks sensitivity, seems to pretend that there are no sensitive people around him. As a result, some people who used to have sensitivity disappear together. They either get chased away or retreat on their own. So, during this recent hearing, when you see that person at the hearing, all the broadcasting, it's all astonishing. What's astonishing is that if that person had even a little sensitivity, they wouldn't be able to bear it. But they have lost their obsession. That's right. So, now we express that being insensitive in the secular sense means not being human. That's how we put it. That's right. Not even being like an animal, that's accurate. Not even like an animal.

Because we have a sense of sophistication, we logically refute each point one by one. If we make a mistake within that, we will be caught again, right? So, we have to keep using energy, which is tiring. But on the receiving end of this attack, it doesn't bother us at all. So, from our perspective, it just looks like pushing forward with force, right? Wow, this is a difficult fight, it's like a premorap. So, we've experienced the ease of being the attacker. Therefore, criticizing those comrades who committed suicide first as irresponsible deaths, endlessly testifying, and making efforts to the end. And that person also eventually commits suicide. But what is as painful as what this person saw in Auschwitz is the ignorance of the people listening to my words. Oh, they could think like that. It's without compulsion. I'm in pain, immediately.

Not being able to feel pain is not being able to recall the pain of our ancestors who felt it in the Sa-do mine, even for a second. This is a serious problem because those people are now ruling us. So, what about those so-called psychopaths, sociopaths? It's a waste to even use those terms here. Actually, it's a waste. Moreover, they are patients, so we can't use such terms. Then what should we do? So, when I watch the parliamentary hearings, I feel that they lack the skills of persuasion. There are skills of rhetoric, forensic science. If there are forensic sciences, there are also the courage to tell the truth. So, basically, rulers in ancient Greece learned two things. First, they learned the art of persuasion, rhetoric, first. Why do they learn rhetoric first?

Education is what the rulers receive, and the oppressed do not receive education. The rulers, what is education for them? It's a skill to persuade the oppressed. How should they persuade? Not by telling the truth. It's important to make them believe it's the truth. So, it's about mainly saying things that the other person likes to hear. They wouldn't say uncomfortable things. Saying what the other person likes to hear, that's it. Up to this point, it's basically rhetoric. Nowadays, rhetoric is not taught at universities. Why not? Because universities are not a place that produces rulers anymore. In the past, universities were a place that produced rulers. Ah, that's why they learned rhetoric. Ah, I see. I understand. However, when I watch a hearing, I think to myself, These people must have learned a very low level of rhetoric. They must have learned a low level of rhetoric. So, they try to persuade, but...

Persuasion doesn't work, so what is the lowest level of rhetoric? It's something you can't understand. It's just, no matter what the situation is, only talking about oneself. Pretending not to understand, it's talking nonsense. Talking nonsense continuously. Oh, so I stood according to the rules. It's drawing money. Yes, like this. But in fact, how far should a politician go? Sometimes, as a ruler, you need to learn diplomacy. Listening to good words, wanting to hear good words, of course, there should be skills to persuade the other person. But there is something more important. Have you heard of parresia? Parresia. It's an expression I'm hearing for the first time at my level. Oh, really? Parresia. It's the greatest in France at the time, by Michel Coco.

A philosopher's last topic was the courage of truth until Minerva's death, and he was entangled until his own death. In simple words, it's the courage of truth. So, it's not about making the other person believe in the truth, but speaking the truth. There's a saying that the truth is cruel. So, when you speak the truth, how does it turn out? Everyone feels uncomfortable. It's not just you, but everyone feels uncomfortable. That's why the courage to speak that truth is needed. It's not just about speaking honestly. Not everyone speaks honestly. Even if it could lead to my death, speaking the truth, that's the courage of philosophy. Who is the representative person? Socrates. Socrates, who showed it most prominently, begged until the end, and the audience.

If the jury says, If you say this, I will spare you, I will still tell the truth until the end. Even if death is at my doorstep, I will speak the truth. Oh, this is the last plea for a political leader. So, these people are the ones who will become great politicians. Usually, politicians cannot reach that point. In reality, they are focused on their own interests. However, those who seek righteousness will find it difficult to grow into practical politicians. They are already eliminated before that. So, this is what we should value now. Because if a politician holds onto righteousness, they will try to protect it at any moment. Yes, so in some cases, those politicians become great. Our environment is like that now. But it is a bit difficult to expect righteousness. It's challenging. We saw it today too. Even within the police, if you do that, you will be immediately removed and pushed out.

So, what this means is that we need to preserve those who speak the truth the most in politics. We need to keep Parhaeja alive, even if it's small. It's difficult for us to have the courage to speak the truth in our daily lives. We need to protect those truthful people. But right now, politics is sending them to prison, suing and prosecuting them all. Parhaeja is currently being captured, and they are trying to kill all those media outlets. Even MBC, which is barely surviving with some public influence among those media outlets, is trying to do something. So, in the end, in order to win the fight against the political forces that have lost their senses, we, who still have some sense left, need to awaken our senses. To go out, I think above all, we need to continue to awaken our senses. We need to awaken our senses. What kind of sense is it? It's simple. Don't explain it further; we don't have time. It's a very simple thing: empathy for the pain of others.

It's a sense of reacting, not just a feeling of playing happily. So, that's why I say this. Have you ever heard a crying cat or cow somewhere in the last 6 months? I'll give you a representative example. What I mean is that even in Korean society now, there are many cats even in rural areas. And because cats fight with each other and get hurt, you can easily find cats like that. Those cats cry. Yes. If you haven't heard it recently, there is a risk. If you are too focused on one thing, you can lose this sense. If you focus on something, like success in society and career advancement, there is a tendency to be at risk of losing this sense. That could happen. Oh, I feel like I've seen it from the side. Yes, that's right. Over the past 3 to 6 months.

I have never heard the sound of a cat outside for 6 months. It's not that there was no sound of a cat, but I didn't hear it. This is a dangerous level of insensitivity. Also, in my opinion, as I mentioned earlier, the current country is dominated by the power of the prosecutors. The roots of the power are not the prosecutors, especially those who have followed a successful path in the special department. They seem to be immersed in this insensitive world. Only then can they understand and interpret. The words of others are good and cool. I think so. But in reality, it is so difficult. It's clear. As I always say, during the previous government, during the Moon Jae-in administration, the time when people who criticized Yoon Seong-yeol, the prosecutor general candidate known as the greatest hero of South Korea, became the corrupt ones. That time.

Newstapa conducts verified reporting. People who shouted for justice at that time are now pointing fingers at Newstapa, canceling subscriptions, and cutting off donations. We should reflect even now. Yes, we should reflect. I think so. Even now, we can awaken that sense of reflection. That's right. We should watch more of Newstapa. But from what I see, such incidents will continue to happen in the future. So, I hope there will be more opportunities to awaken that sense, to awaken that sensitivity, through the show that Mr. Choi Woong is doing. Yes, thank you. We will end it here today. We were able to discover once again that we are in an era fighting against apathy. Thank you very much, Professor Park Goo-yong. Thank you. Thank you.

철학자 박구용 "국민의 목소리에 무감각한 이유는 지나친 권력욕 때문" [코너별 다시보기]

고품격 예능 콘텐츠!
압도적 재미 매불쇼!
세상의 모든 이야기를 재미로 풀어내는 국내 유일 버라이어티 쇼!

압도적 재미, 매불쇼는 
매주 (월~금) PM 2시~4시 팟빵앱을 통해 라이브로 들을 수 있습니다.
라이브 파일은 당일 밤 팟빵에 업로드됩니다. 

[매불쇼]는 오디오 플랫폼 ㈜팟빵이 제작하는 오리지널 프로그램입니다. 

매불쇼 팟빵 채널: https://www.podbbang.com/channels/16898
문의: mbshow@podbbang.com
팟빵: https://m.podbbang.com

광고 문의 : ad@podbbang.com / 02-6903-9392
출연, 사연 등 기타 문의 : mbshow@podbbang.com
또는 인스타그램 @maebulshow 메시지 주세요 :)

ⓒ팟빵 Corp ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


철학자 박구용 "국민의 목소리에 무감각한 이유는 지나친 권력욕 때문" [코너별 다시보기]

철학자 박구용 "국민의 목소리에 무감각한 이유는 지나친 권력욕 때문" [코너별 다시보기]

스크립트