Be careful, it's a jung—er...a desert out there

Some of the notable peace prize winners from my lifetime, there's a lot more than Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. Sorry Joe but not everything on Earth is about hating Bush or America:

MARTTI AHTISAARI
KIM DAE JUNG
DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS (MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES)
JOHN HUME
CARLOS FELIPE XIMENES BELO and JOSE RAMOS-HORTA
YASSER ARAFAT
SHIMON PERES
YITZHAK RABIN
NELSON MANDELA
AUNG SAN SUU KYI
MIKHAIL SERGEYEVICH GORBACHEV
ELIE WIESEL
DESMOND MPILO TUTU
LECH WALESA
MOHAMED ANWAR AL-SADAT
MENACHEM BEGIN
BETTY WILLIAMS
MAIREAD CORRIGAN

2:14... Future Dictator.

Kim Jung Il look out.

Idiot. dieser kleine Junge sterben wird hart
den kleinen "Scheiss wahrscheinlich nicht wissen, was er redet

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Studio Ghibli, Hayao Miyazaki, Animation, Japan' to 'Studio Ghibli, Hayao Miyazaki, Animation, Japan, Sungha Jung' - edited by EndAll

>> ^deedub81:
NetRunner:I guess I'm not sure why people think the hypotheticals can happen, or why they think torture is a reliable or effective means of extracting accurate information.

Oh, but these hypothetical situations can and do happen. We do have terrorists in custody, right this very minute, that know information that is important to the security of our country.
Torture isn't a 100% reliable means of extracting accurate information. I don't know any rational human being who believes that it is. It also is not 100% ineffective. Anybody who argues that torture is 100% ineffective is lying and twisting the truth to get their way. It's a noble motive, but not a noble tactic.
If you think it's wrong, talk about why you believe it's wrong. It's okay for something to work and still be wrong. Assassination could have been a very effective method of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Il, and other evil dictators, but we've decided that it's immoral, so we don't do it.

Here's a couple of questions I pose to you. Do you believe that the torture of somebody innocent is morally right? How many innocent people's torture is worth how man lives of people? Is it 1:1, 2:1, 1000:1? I'm a numbers guy you're going to have to give me hard numbers, not wishy-washy fuzzy logic.

The point is, unless you set up this ridiculous guideline that everybody agrees with, you will have people fighting against torture. I mean if you could promise for every 1 innocent tortured, 100 people live, that might be a good bet for the acceptance of torture, but if you are not 100% about any type of figure like that, you're just f*ckin' with our heads.

NetRunner:I guess I'm not sure why people think the hypotheticals can happen, or why they think torture is a reliable or effective means of extracting accurate information.


Oh, but these hypothetical situations can and do happen. We do have terrorists in custody, right this very minute, that know information that is important to the security of our country.

Torture isn't a 100% reliable means of extracting accurate information. I don't know any rational human being who believes that it is. It also is not 100% ineffective. Anybody who argues that torture is 100% ineffective is lying and twisting the truth to get their way. It's a noble motive, but not a noble tactic.

If you think it's wrong, talk about why you believe it's wrong. It's okay for something to work and still be wrong. Assassination could have been a very effective method of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Il, and other evil dictators, but we've decided that crosses a line, so we don't do it.

adversarial? yeah.. and you're not patronising in the slightest huh?

i think i understood full well your point. but then i also think you've misunderstood why i originally quoted rougy's comment, and why i subsequently mentioned the ridiculous ideas of FSM, IPU, teacup etc. they are all untestable, outside the realm of science. hence for someone to say 'science will never explain the soul' is absurd. of course it won't. it can't. just as it can't explain an infinite number of other hypothetical things -- which IS a useful point. they are all equally ridiculous. the soul is as likely as god is as likely as FSM etc. this boils down in the end to an argument on ontology, which if you are a rational person, brings you to science as the best method we have for testing reality. that method relies on evidence. evidence for all those things == 0. therefore, likelihood of those things being real approximates 0. which means you should apply the same reasoning to the existence of a soul as you do to unicorns, fairies, and a magical cupcake with feet that created the universe.

does that explain how i responded to "prove that the soul does not exist" the way i did?

i really do apologise if my views on freud or jung are upsetting, but i feel strongly about it because i have learned of the damage freud's ideas have inflicted.

now let's have a hug and talk about how we want to fuck our mothers and kill our fathers.

berticus,
whats with the adversarial tone bud?
all i was saying is that you cannot prove or disprove either argument concerning the validity and nature,or even existence of a soul.
your counter was,lets just say,less than creative.
and then you admonish me for making the conflation of jung being the father of humanism,well...i have the textbook right in front of me and the title of the chapter is.../drum roll
carl jung, father of humanism
if you disagree with that title take it up with the authors,all i was suggesting
was some reading,which i gather you have already done.
i also gather you found freud and jungs work ill-thought and crazy.
ok..thats your right..i dont.i guess psychoanalysis really IS dead,and the super ego was just a "fad".
i find neitzche nihilistic and depressing,but thats my opinion.i do like hegel though,you may not.
psychology is NOT an exact science,and anybody who says it is,is talking out their collective ass.
but all this is not the point,the point of my comment,one you conveniently ignored...is that arguing about the existence of a soul is a dead end argument.
you are free to feel and believe what you wish my friend,i am not your enemy,and my comment was not of a antagonistic flavor.it was just a statement,and an accurate one at that.even richard dawkins will concede the point i made.
but i do thank you for your contributions to this topic.
and BTW..
the answer is:socrates,kung fu tzu

>> ^enoch:
prove that the soul does not exist.
cant?
then chalk it up to the "i dont know" factor,and dont even try the "prove it DOES exist" because i cant either.to even attempt that futile argument is an exercise in wasted time.
i will suggest reading about the father of "humanism" the collective unconcious,carl jung.if you have taken any psychology courses you have heard of him.

prove that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist.
prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.
prove that the orbiting teacup does not exist.
prove that god does not exist.

prove, prove, prove.

i've taken plenty of psychology courses, actually, and if you had too, you would know that you learn very early on that jung (and freud) had some fun ideas... but they were just that. they are not science. they are ideas, and unfortunately some of them have been quite damaging. they are outdated and the fact that people still give credit to either freud or jung's untestable unprovable psychobabble is scary.

how you came to the conclusion that jung of all people was the founder of humanism boggles the mind. if you take 2 minutes to look at what jung espoused and then compare that to what humanism is... quite different.

>> ^berticus:
WTF.... WTF IS GOING ON
VIDEOSIFT?
HELLO?
>> ^rougy:
The scientists will never explain the soul.


prove that the soul does not exist.
cant?
then chalk it up to the "i dont know" factor,and dont even try the "prove it DOES exist" because i cant either.to even attempt that futile argument is an exercise in wasted time.
i will suggest reading about the father of "humanism" the collective unconcious,carl jung.if you have taken any psychology courses you have heard of him.
http://www.nndb.com/people/910/000031817/

well well well,i really didnt think this vid would get sifted,not only DID it get sifted,but seems we have a discussion going.
good.
every person is in part a product of their enviroment and experiences,and each is different in their own right,people who purport to be of a spiritual nature are dismissed by both religious AND atheist as being weak-minded and wrong.
yet neither side can prove or disprove.
and that suits me just fine.
a religious person will use dogma and doctrine to make their point,oddly enough,so will the atheist.doctrine and dogma are based on tangible text,i can come up with a counter argument everytime using the VERY same doctrine.
but to disprove someones experience?
thats far trickier,and i am not so arrogant to believe i know everything.
i cannot discount this mans experience,and honestly,would drugging him up into a medicated zombie be prefferable to his way of dealing with his perceived existence?
just a thought.

me too.thats why i tagged it kaballistic,many parallels.in addition many of carl jung and R.D laing's work refer to the randomness quotient.
quantum theory fascinates me,the applicable math i find impossible,but the theory part absolutely rivets me to my seat.
and in all honesty,how much do we REALLY know?
einstein proved that time is relative and there is no travel faster than light,but BECAUSE of E=MC(2) quantum physics was born,and BOOM...
seems there can be travel faster than light,but only in theory.
ah...time travel..NEAT.
hell,quantum mechanics gave us the very computer's we are playing on.
thanks for the vote sir schmawy =)
In reply to this comment by schmawy:
I'll vote for it too, because it's intriguing. Although if any of this were true, science would have to eat itself.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
Kafka was Czech, not Polish.

And he certainly wasn't a philosopher, just a brilliant writer.


thanks for the clarification on kafka's place of birth,thought it was poland.
but i disagree with you in saying that kafka was not a philosopher.
aristotle,socrates,nicodemus,sun tzu?....no.
but are not all writers,and especially poets, constantly perfecting their craft in condensing the real,and unreal,into a concentrated vision of truth?
they gaze unblinking at the void and expose their souls for all to admire...or admonish.
that, my friend, takes courage few have.
is that not..
in essence..
the very core of philosophy?
before you can think..you must LOOK..
before you can FEEL..you must experience..
we all are tiny gods in our own way.
petty philosophers tinkering with the creation that is our life.
but the greats...
neitzsche,hegel,jung,tielhard etc etc,
ah..they had BALLS.
they stared into the abyss unflinching.
sighs..
i wax melodramitic here..
but i cant help it.
kafka's poetry is infuriatingly obtuse at times,but his genius in rare moments cannot be denied.
but to be honest...
it's J Keats who always makes my feeble attempts appear small,fragile and
a stunning tribute to pure hackery.
that man WAS poetry.
interesting that both kafka and keats died of consumption.
in any case..
thank you my friend for setting me straight,
and allowing an old man to babble about his heroes.
till next time..
namaste.

50 points to>>>>>mkknry for mentioning teilhard d chardin.

well,this is a new twist.i have never heard of "transhumanism" before.
i thought this video would be about carl jung.
absolutely delightful!/claps hands
the ideology of man expanding past his mortal coil and perhaps reaching something far greater.maybe even eventually reaching a point to touch and commune with god,is not a new ideology.
it is perhaps the oldest.
now we have people who wish to use technology to speed that process up?
brilliant.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Korea, banana milk, dance, do the robot' to 'Korea, banana milk, dance, do the robot, Jung Joon Ha' - edited by mauz15