문화 의사로서 철학자의 역할

### 문화 의사로서 철학자의 역할과 갈등의 중요성
* 철학자의 역할은 사회의 건강한 측면과 병든 측면을 구분하는 **'문화의 의사' 역할**을 하는 것입니다.
* 📉 고대 그리스와 현대에서 볼 수 있듯이 철학은 **문화가 쇠퇴하는 시기에 번성**하는 경향이 있습니다.
* ❓ 철학은 **기존의 도덕적 금기와 가치관에 의문**을 제기하는 것을 포함합니다.
* 🌍 철학자들은 종종 세상을 바라보는 통찰력을 얻기 위해 **번성했던 역사 문화를 돌아보곤** 합니다.
* 폭력은 역사적으로 인간의 본성 및 문화와 얽혀 있기 때문에 **'폭력으로부터 자유로울 수 있는 인권은 신성하다'**는 생각에 의문이 제기됩니다.
* ⚔ 전쟁과 폭력을 포함한 갈등은 **미덕, 집단 결속력, 공유된 정체성**을 만드는 데 필수적이라고 주장합니다.
* 🌐 글로벌리즘과 다문화주의와 같은 현대의 도전은 **집단의 정체성과 공유 가치를 약화**시키는 것으로 간주됩니다.
* 🔮 연사는 소규모 커뮤니티가 갈등과 어려움에 직면할 수 있는 **'위험한 경계선'**을 찾는 것이 사회 건강을 유지하는 데 중요하다고 제안합니다.

철학자는 일반적인 도덕적 가치에 의문을 제기하고 도전하며 사회 발전을 위한 갈등과 전쟁의 중요성을 강조하는 문화의 의사 역할을 합니다.

n believed that the role of a philosopher was to be a physician of culture. In some sense, a philosopher can distinguish and remember what is healthy and flourishing versus what is sick. He can distinguish the two and therefore become a doctor for his people. In a sense, and it's interesting thing is that philosophy flourishes when culture declines. Like when the aristocracy of Greece of ancient Athens was in decay, democracy, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle all were born from that because there was this great Decay, there was this great demise happening with the democ like inside their democracy. So all sudden philosophy had a need there, there was a need for it. The same thing is happening today, the same thing happened in Nietzsche's times. Like today, there's craziness happening in the dating Market, in marriage rates declining, in the epidemic of obesity, of pills, of depression, of anxiety. Everyone's just isolated in apartments, not really talking to one another. And like there's just so many problems we need to get into them but

all of them are spiking culture is literally collapsing around us, and it's why there's so many philosophers Rising on the internet. In a sense, if you go look at the top podcasts on, you know, Spotify, a lot of them are philosophy oriented. I want to read you a quote from n before we get into some of these inst post that I want to review today. So quote, philosophy is a seeking after everything strange and questionable in existence, all that has hitherto been excommunicated by morality. Eomo. So philosophy, in a sense, is a questioning art, and it's especially in the questioning of Mo of taboos of your time, right? And this is what the philosopher does, and that why they historical sense might be kind of important, as morality changes. And what happens when morality changes is it excommunicates large aspects of life that are now totally taboo. Okay, and a couple of those in today's day would be race, would be group identity, would be um, war, peace, democracy, the value of democracy, the value of God. Like A

diversity. A lot of these things are now taboo, just like imposed on you anyways. My friends, the philosopher art is to question the sacred cows, question the holy cows, that's where the meat is, and oftentimes we need to go back to periods like the Renaissance, like ancient Greece, where there was flourishing and healthy culture, to remember how they saw the world so that we can learn to look at our world through their eyes. That's what philosophy does and why a philosopher is a physician of culture. I saw this on Instagram, and it actually sparked this video. It says, human life is sacred, human dignity is sacred, human cultures are sacred, the human right to be free from violence is sacred. Now this and about a million other of these quotes are posted every single day of these Freedom Fighters for Palestine, and guys, I don't, I'm going to say what I think here, and before I qualify it with Palestine and all these things, but ultimately there's this line that says

the human right to be free of violence is sacred. This is a moral structure of our time. This is a right or wrong valuation, that's what morality is. It's a valuation thing. It's like this post values obviously total peace, right? But it has no historical sense whatsoever. It's written by someone totally ignorant, like absolutely ignorant. The human right to be free of violence is not sacred. In fact, in almost every culture, time, and tradition, violence, war was sacred. And in every flourishing culture, war was perhaps the most sacred thing. We look at things like ancient Greece, the samurai flourishing in Japan, we look at Viking in Native Americans, war was a central part of every culture for all of time. Violence, the lack of violence was never sacred. In fact, the balance between peace and war is what was sacred. And War was really important for the development of masculinity in fighting men. And so we have this valuation today that all conflict is bad and the philosopher, what a philosopher does, in a sense, is he

takes a moral valuation that is universal in his time and questions it. This post: The human right to be free from violence is sacred is one of the most falsest statements I've literally ever heard. This person has never obviously been in nature for any period of time because if you do go into nature, you're going to see the hawk literally gutting the rabbit while it's alive, the lion eating the Gazelle while it still lives, the Wolves literally starving to death in the winter. Like, there is violence everywhere; nature is one of the most violent places on Earth. If you go to the like the Amazon rainforest or any jungle, it is this a cacophony of death and violence, the entire thing; everything is eating everything else. And the crazy thing is that's also human nature, and to say that the lack of violence is sacred is to literally shun human nature. This is what my next video is about; it's about the Shadow and how the shadow is created, and the shadow within people is created when we shun

our biological instincts, our passions, who, like our natural selves, we create a shadow. Oh, your instinct towards violence, ambition, competition, grandiosity, all of that is bad, right? And it retreats to the shadow. Interesting thing, in different cultures, those things would have been seen as great, like glorious malevolent violence in war to an ancient Greek Aristocrat would have been seen as Divine. So, to these Instagram moralists, my question would be: what's the right amount of violence? What's the right amount of conflict? When can War be good? And the thing is, most of these people will lie to themselves and they'll say zero. Like, so many people have a utopian idea of reality that we can get to a point where there is no more conflict. It's really interesting. It's like I'm an idealist, I believe in a golden age and I'm here to create a golden age, but I think violence might actually be really important in that. It's almost like Heraclitus is saying that war is the father of all things. I want to

give you an example of why violence might be important. Is when you have extended periods of peace in any culture or civilization, decadence rules. In ancient times, periods of peace were looked upon with great mistrust because, like addictions, degeneration was inevitable. It was only when you and your brothers were about to go to war that discipline and virtue prevailed. Like if you had ongoing conflict with your neighboring tribe, every man in your crew would be the most virtuous possible. Why? Because you would demand it of them. If you knew that you're going to be standing on the bridge, fighting to the death for your whole family, right? You would want the person next to you to be in their same all the time. And this is why war creates virtue. Is when there's conflict, when there's struggle, you have to be your best, you have to do your best. When there's no struggle, when there's all peace, everything is dissolution, everything degenerates. And we even see this with like sports, like if you have to train.

and compete and prepare for the championship, you become your best version. And this is why there's this idea that flourishing cultures, flourishing Nations. The success of a new nation can be determined by one factor: how much responsibility does each individual have on their shoulders. The higher the responsibility, the greater the US versus them, or the greater the external conflict, the more successful that Nation will be. And this is why nations rise to power on Frontiers, right? Uh, what's a good example of that? Essentially, when there's a frontier, when there's open space to conquer, and there's danger beyond the borders, it creates the most group cohesion, group collaboration, and the idea of wasabia. And wasabia is shared group feeling, a shared vision and feeling towards something. And you have that when there's great conflict. I know for me, going almost to the state championship in football and high school, the feeling of wasabia, of group shared feeling and determination on that team, was beautiful. I've tried to

recreate my whole life in some way and I there is no sense of Brotherhood anymore there is no sense of community anymore because we have no shared purpose this is so important people who hate conflict will never live in community even though they say they want community over and over and over and over the thing that creates Community is conflict and I'm going give you about a hundred examples here because this lights me up this is the idea of nationalism okay imagine if you were you grew up in Boston okay and from your high school the best baseball player like moved up he went to Boston College played baseball there he went and then he started playing for the Boston Red Sox in fact the Boston Red Red Sox the professional baseball team had all the best baseball players that went to that grew up there okay they went to college there they went to high school there they're known in the community the whole Community is only one degree away from them you either know one of the players directly or your friends know them

directly imagine the feeling. The group feeling of camaraderie of wasabia when the Red Sox played, you know, uh, the New York Yankees. The group feeling would be incredible because there's nationalism, your or your Boston State, your Boston city is united against the Yankees. Okay, what happens these days is the Boston Red Sox are filled with people from LA, from Puerto Rico, from the New York Yankees, from Minnesota. Like it, it's just, there, there is no nationalism about it, right? And because of this, the idea of a culture behind the Boston Red Sox is quickly fading. In fact, all culture around the world is quickly fading right now because of globalism, because of this mixing, this multiculturalism. There's no group identity, there's no group feeling and shared purpose outside of these large social institutions like wokeism or something like that. Or, you know, yeah, there are a few left, but what I'm saying is when you have high group identity and then conflict with another group like Red Sox versus Yankees, all of a sudden it

creates this amazing electric culture of community camaraderie shared feeling between the Yankees and the Red Sox, and this is what people want. This is actually what we all crave. I don't know any of my neighbors in this huge apartment I just moved into. I probably never really will. Maybe I'll meet a few of them; we'll like be acquaintances. Maybe I'll meet a friend, but we're not going to conquer anything together. There's no war where I need all of them to be their best selves, and we need to Great create group flow. There's no business we need to build. There's not even a sense of nationalism because most of the people in this apartment building probably hate their own country, right? There's this really weird disease in culture right now, and it's a and it's a disease of dispersion, of dispersion of all shared feeling, all shared values. And I think, personally, that this is a disease that comes when we when we lack conflict, which is crazy, like we almost need War. We need conflict, and we need it at smaller scales. The problem is

is in the 1900s, the conflicts became global for the first time ever. We had World War I, World War II, right? And there was a lot of nationalism at that time, for good or for worse. We could go into the moralization of it later, but I think the conflicts became too big, and then we got too scared of conflict in general. And there's this really interesting question that I think of all the time, is like, where is the dangerous frontier where me and a small group or small community, let's say like a hundred people, a thousand people, 10,000 people, could go take on, could go have conflict again? You see the native tribes across America, for instance, would have like these staged wars in a sense where not many men, young men died, but they still had to go practice courage against the threat of death. Like that idea was the initiation into manhood. This was so prominent across all the world. And also, that experience of war created awesome group feeling and group identity within a tribe. So it just brings me to

this question is the lack of violence sacred absolutely not. The lack of violence will lead to the destruction of everything. War is the father of all things. War is what creates virtue. War is what creates group flow and group feeling and shared sense of identity. Like it's so important. And when I say, War, I'm literally speaking of Trials of hard times of hardships conflict and yes war and violence. Like all of them are important. And the problem is when you say it's totally bad, you create Shadow right. And we just do this all the time everywhere is all these like institutions and ideas and things that we Implement culturally aren't philosophically based because there's been a death of philosophy in some sense and this great self-denial this great ignorance this great lying to ourselves. And I think this needs to be addressed why I'm talking

This is why philosophers are KILLED - Podcast 2

Wisdom Warriors

철학자는 사회의 쇠퇴를 파악하고 그 문제를 해결할 수 있는 문화의 치유자로 여겨집니다.

철학은 금기와 신성한 믿음에 의문을 제기하며 문화가 쇠퇴하는 시대에 번성합니다.

문화가 붕괴되고 있는 오늘날의 세계에서는 규범에 도전하고 새로운 관점을 제시하는 철학자의 필요성이 점점 더 커지고 있습니다.

폭력으로부터 자유로울 인권이라는 개념은 역사적으로나 문화적으로 신성하지 않다는 도전을 받고 있습니다.

이 게시물은 폭력은 자연과 인간의 존재에 내재되어 있으며, 이를 피하는 것은 인간의 생물학적 본능에 반하는 것이라고 주장합니다.

모든 갈등이 본질적으로 나쁘다는 생각에 의문을 제기하고 폭력이 인간의 존재와 "황금기"의 창조에 중요한 역할을 할 수 있다고 제안합니다.

미덕과 커뮤니티를 키우는 데 있어 갈등의 역할

장기간의 평화는 퇴보로 이어질 수 있는 반면, 갈등과 투쟁은 개인에게 최선을 다할 것을 요구하며 미덕을 키웁니다.

국가와 공동체는 종종 외부의 갈등을 통해 공동의 목적과 집단의 결속력을 형성하며 번성합니다.

민족주의의 개념은 성공한 개인과 공동체가 긴밀하게 연결되어 공유된 정체성과 목적의식을 형성하는 데서 예시됩니다.

글로벌리즘이 그룹 정체성에 미치는 영향

글로벌리즘의 영향으로 보스턴 레드삭스를 둘러싼 전통적인 팀의 정체성과 문화가 사라지고 있으며, 팀의 구성원이 더욱 다양해지고 있습니다.

다문화주의로의 변화는 지역적으로나 전 세계적으로 공유 가치와 공동체 의식의 쇠퇴에 기여하고 있습니다.

연사는 갈등과 집단 정체성의 결여로 인해 공유된 감정이 분산되고 있다고 말하며, 동지애와 공동의 목적을 위해 소규모 갈등의 필요성을 강조합니다.

인류 역사에서 분쟁과 전쟁의 중요성

1900년대에는 제1차 세계대전과 제2차 세계대전과 같은 세계적인 분쟁으로 전쟁에 대한 공포가 만연했지만, 인간 경험의 중요한 부분으로서의 갈등에 대한 생각은 지속되었습니다.

많은 문화권에서는 전쟁을 용기, 집단 정체성, 미덕을 쌓는 데 필수적인 것으로 여겼습니다.

연사는 폭력과 전쟁의 중요성을 부정하는 것은 현대 문화에서 철학적 토대가 부족하고 자기기만으로 이어졌다고 생각하며, 이 문제를 해결해야 한다고 강조합니다.