9 Answers

  1. It's naive to think that viral videos on the Internet can teach you to think. Mr. Freeman expresses a general nihilistic, perhaps even revolutionary, intention in society. As it was sung in the famous song: “Our hearts demand changes” is the main leitmotif of this project.

  2. This is the first time I've heard it. I'll take a look…

    I looked it up.

    Well, yes, this is not a philosophy.

    And not all in all exactly what I would have thought about this or that topic, if and all that — I mean, he's got such a speed that not all mistakes are visible, and even if they are not there, although this can never be, because it's still a disrespect for more intelligent and more profoundly deepened who you know from the cartoon, which, as You also know, is unacceptable


    But it 's VERY COOL.

  3. There is a contradiction in your question – “thinking for yourself” means studying some materials, analyzing them, evaluating them critically, and drawing conclusions. If a person is taught this, then a certain pattern of thinking is laid in him – this is no longer independent thinking, but inspired. And getting self-education not through complex books, but through cartoons is a dubious occupation, although in some cases, it may be useful

  4. From what I watched or listened to in this series – the presentation of the material itself is more likely NOT conducive to thinking, rather it is blurting out and emotional promotion. Yes, they made me think, like, ” what was that?” – but I don't remember saying later: oh, listen to this issue, it explains this topic well…

    So yes, this is more propaganda that destroys traditional logical foundations, rather than some kind of training of thought. Let's say you are told: “why eat bread if you can eat chips?” – and you think: and really, why? Note that they were not encouraged to eat chips, and they were not encouraged to give up bread – but there is a very tangible probability that there will be many people who will declare that they have learned to think and understand that it is possible to eat chips, and not the bread that was imposed on them. Formally, they did make an independent judgment, but did they learn to make judgments, to judge something intelligently?

  5. It's like taking the whole mess going on in a sixteen-year-old's head and giving it shape. It will turn out – this. You can even put it more simply. Freeman's main thought: “My mother said as a child that it would be so, but in reality it turned out not to be so.”

    As a result, all the content is endless exaggeration, revelations, insults, lies, and so on. But even this is not the worst part, the worst thing is that what is new in this is only the style of the videos itself (and even that is not a fact). Words do not say anything new here.
    Let's go through the examples:

    “Your life is full of lies, porn, everyday life, Internet addiction and mobile phone slavery. Am I not right?“- no. I, like many, many of you, lie quite rarely, in addition to porn, I also deal with the opposite sex, life without everyday life is the life of a homeless person, I, like you, can do without the Internet and without phones. So much for Freeman. Just a little common sense is enough to make it disappear. What's next for him?

    “There is nothing to do in this country: there are more alcoholics and morons here than there are people in the whole world. The environment is terrible, there is no education, and so is the nano-future. There are no options here: go ahead and forget like a bad dream. ” – an ordinary rashka-parashka, which is the worst in the world. How fresh.

    “The idea is simple. The system monitors you while you're on-line. But if everyone starts thinking differently, the system doesn't have enough hands, methods, or rules to spank everyone.” – well, here's a classic, Boris with the system. It's been ridiculed a million times, but apparently every generation needs to go through it. As they say, a new school needs a new Columbine.

    “But the Motherland understands me, because it hears and knows. And the relevant services have already given me a transparent hint about my place… Well, my friends, have you finished yelling?.. “- there are no comments at all… In the style of howls from some ” analysts “that the Kremlin is” twisting ” their YouTube views.

    That's all. I honestly thought that the project has a lot of different, albeit hackneyed thoughts, but no, even they are not enough. In most videos , it's just a stream of consciousness about nothing.

    Main audience: people who want to rebel intellectually, but at the same time do not go too far out of bounds (either they do not want to, or they cannot). You know such people: for them, non – pop music is Kurt Cobain, non – pop film is Requiem for a Dream, non – pop book is 1984, non – pop philosopher is Nietzsche, scientist is Stephen Hawking. Well, you understand, like at the same time “in the topic”, but also at the same time “not like the mass”. Dig deeper-not about them. Because it will take a long and difficult time to” dig”, and there is no one to brag to, since the understanding audience will be narrower and narrower. Such pies.

  6. To commentator Evgeny:

    Whimsy and an old man's attempt to measure the boundless and precise subjective with an angular objective, which perfectly describes the reality of a certain aspect of life. With your skeptical and limited grandiloquence, all art is banal, all religions are the same, and everything that is full of fire and passion and imagination is nothing more than the chaotic dream of a Dostoevsky teenager. You are despicable, just as anyone is despicable who denigrates the ideas of good and light and reason, calling eternity a banality. Freeman is only a small fragment of the process that affects the minds of a generation, a process that is revolutionary and slowly boiling up in the minds of a young nation.�

    The most important currency is human attention, he once said. And he took this into account, saying that every revolution is stupid, and every true revolution is initially a revolution of consciousness. He was talking about human vices. About the fact that a war of morality and ugliness is already taking place, that the current peaceful modernity is a massacre. For the minds. That there are those who benefit from us humans fighting and fighting and eating each other like rats in a sack, and that we humans only indulge them by living our lives in hatred for each other, which is the only thing that makes us whole, that our education and knowledge are limited, that we live in constant lies to our own intellect, talk nonsense, envy, jerk off, that encouraged by incessant preoccupied fussiness, vulgarity, and a desire to get drunk.�

    In a word, a banality, isn't it?

  7. No, he has a couple of reasonable videos, but, unfortunately, no more. For the most part, it all comes down to a statement of fact, yes, the picture is excellent, but this is a double-edged sword. It is clear that the project had customers, respectively, too long videos with such a well-drawn character are a priori impossible. For this reason, every three-minute video is just a bombing, a statement of fact, and a huge number of insults in the direction of the viewer (by the way, this is one of the reasons why I don't like this brainchild, I don't know about you, but I don't really like it when the creators of this series treat their audience like cattle). An extremely aggressive feed makes it difficult to concentrate normally, and simply leaves an extremely unpleasant aftertaste.

  8. Freeman is a meme. It teaches you to think insofar as you are able to understand that a lot of categorical statements against the background of an entertaining video series is not a complete philosophy, and the suggestion of searching for a deep meaning ,a “message” is banter at the viewer.

  9. Freeman's ideas are one of many attempts to explain and show people that something is deeply wrong with the world and with the people who live in it. Many of his statements about this are really objective. It's another thing to show the shortcomings is one thing , but to show the way out of all this is quite another. And with this, in my opinion, Freeman has big problems. After all, it is not enough for people and the world to see the darkness of this world, but more importantly, the world needs light. And what is the light of the world? The question is rhetorical.

Leave a Reply