La mort de la pensée.

Summary

The script is a passionate call to arms against intellectual laziness and the dismissal of deep thought. It criticizes the use of rhetorical questions and the tendency to label complex issues as 'philosophical' to avoid engagement. The speaker decries the harm done by these attitudes to the pursuit of truth and understanding, urging viewers to embrace rigorous thinking and to not be swayed by superficial skepticism. The script challenges viewers to confront serious topics like love, friendship, work, and politics with the depth they deserve, and to seek out resources that can aid in this intellectual journey.

Takeaways

• 📚 The script criticizes the dismissal of philosophical inquiry with rhetorical questions or by labeling discussions as 'just philosophy'.
• 🤔 It emphasizes the importance of engaging with difficult questions and not avoiding them with superficial or dismissive attitudes.
• 🐱 The metaphor of a 'little cat hanging itself in despair' is used to illustrate the frustration of deep thought being undermined by shallow responses.
• 🗣️ The script calls for a war against those who sabotage intellectual depth and avoid grappling with complex issues.
• ⏰ The repeated phrase 'Dimanche à dix heures' (Sunday at ten o'clock) seems to be a call to action or a reminder of an important meeting time, although its exact meaning is not clear from the context.
• 💡 The speaker argues that philosophy is not about idle speculation but about actively engaging with and challenging our beliefs and understanding.
• 🔍 Three 'supercheries' (super deceits) that kill the spirit are identified: dismissing topics as philosophical, using rhetorical questions to shut down discussion, and the claim of scientists to only describe and not judge.
• 👨‍🔬 It challenges the notion that scientists, as experts, should refrain from making judgments, suggesting they should also engage in broader philosophical reflection outside their labs.
• 🧐 The script suggests that preconceived notions about philosophy may prevent us from seriously considering important life questions such as love, friendship, work, and politics.
• 📻 It encourages seeking out resources like podcasts and videos to deepen our understanding of philosophical ideas and to engage with them more critically.
• 🚫 The script warns against the dangers of taking a dismissive attitude towards philosophical questions, suggesting it could limit our freedom and ability to make informed choices in life.

Q & A

What does the speaker declare war against in the script?

The speaker declares war against those who sabotage the beginning of any in-depth discussion, those who dodge difficult questions, and those who blindly accept everything they are told without critical thinking.

What does the speaker suggest happens to a kitten every time someone uses a rhetorical question to avoid serious discussion?

The speaker humorously suggests that every time someone uses a rhetorical question to avoid serious discussion, somewhere in the world, a kitten hangs itself out of despair.

What are the three 'supercheries' or deceptions the speaker wants to expose in the script?

The three deceptions the speaker wants to expose are: 1) Dismissing a problem as 'philosophical' without further thought, 2) Using a rhetorical question like 'But after all...' to cut off discussion, and 3) Claiming to be a scientist who only describes and does not judge, as a way to avoid deeper reflection.

Why does the speaker criticize the phrase 'But after all...'?

The speaker criticizes the phrase 'But after all...' because it is used to shut down discussion and dismiss alternative viewpoints, acting as a form of rhetorical authority that stifles critical thinking.

What does the speaker say about the role of scientists in philosophical discussions?

The speaker argues that while scientists should refrain from moral judgments within their scientific work, they should not shy away from engaging in philosophical discussions and questioning concepts outside the scope of their science.

What is the speaker's view on the importance of philosophy in addressing serious questions like love, friendship, work, and politics?

The speaker believes that philosophy is crucial in addressing these serious questions, as it provides a space to explore different perspectives and think critically about the issues that affect our lives.

Why does the speaker compare the dismissal of philosophical questions to the hanging of kittens?

The comparison serves as a metaphor to emphasize the emotional and intellectual despair that results from the dismissal of important philosophical inquiries, highlighting the tragedy of avoiding deep thought.

What does the speaker suggest is the consequence of not engaging with philosophical questions?

The speaker suggests that avoiding philosophical questions leads to being guided by mechanisms that will eventually hinder our freedom when making crucial choices in life.

What does the speaker recommend to those who want to engage more with philosophical discussions?

The speaker recommends subscribing to the channel and clicking the bell to not miss any content, as well as exploring resources like France Culture podcasts and Mr. Phi's videos.

How does the speaker describe the common misconception about philosophers?

The speaker describes a common misconception as viewing philosophers as distant figures surrounded by trivial quotes, rather than as thinkers who offer profound arguments and insights.

What is the speaker's final call to action for the audience?

The speaker's final call to action is to reject the surrender of deep reflection and the abolition of profound thought, encouraging the audience to engage with philosophical discussions and not to miss out on the content provided.

Outlines

00:00

😤 Combating Shallow Thinking

The speaker passionately declares war on those who undermine intellectual depth by using rhetorical questions or dismissive statements like 'it's philosophical' or 'all speech is a lie'. They criticize those who avoid serious reflection and instead, blindly accept information without critical examination. The speaker emphasizes the importance of engaging with difficult questions and not succumbing to superficial thinking.

Keywords

💡Rhetorical question

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer. In the video, the speaker criticizes the use of rhetorical questions to dismiss serious issues, as it can shut down meaningful discussion and avoid deep thinking. The script mentions, 'But after all...' as an example of a rhetorical question that is used to undermine the importance of a topic.

💡Philosophical

The term 'philosophical' refers to matters related to philosophy, which is the study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. The speaker in the video argues against the dismissive use of 'philosophical' to avoid engaging with complex issues, emphasizing that philosophy should be taken seriously and can help unravel incoherence and dissolve false beliefs.

💡Sabotage

Sabotage is the act of intentionally causing damage or destruction to equipment or a structure. In the context of the video, the speaker uses 'sabotage' metaphorically to describe the act of undermining intellectual depth and serious reflection by avoiding difficult questions or dismissing them with clichés and rhetorical devices.

💡Superstition

Superstition refers to a belief or behavior based on irrational or supernatural ideas. The video script humorously mentions 'touching wood' as a superstitious act to avoid having to think deeply, illustrating the speaker's point that people often resort to such behaviors to avoid intellectual challenges.

💡Speculation

Speculation in the video's context refers to the act of forming opinions or theories without firm evidence, often associated with philosophical thought. The speaker refutes the notion that philosophy is mere speculation, asserting that it involves active engagement and critical thinking rather than passive contemplation.

💡Incoherence

Incoherence means the lack of logical consistency or clarity. The script discusses the importance of addressing incoherence in our beliefs and thoughts, suggesting that philosophy can help us make sense of our ideas and ensure they are logically sound.

💡Judgment

Judgment, in this context, refers to the ability to form opinions and make decisions. The speaker criticizes the reluctance of some scientists to make judgments, arguing that even within the realm of descriptive sciences, it is important to engage with moral dilemmas and not to avoid them completely.

💡Moral dilemmas

Moral dilemmas are situations where a person must choose between two or more conflicting moral principles or values. The video emphasizes that avoiding moral dilemmas can stifle intellectual growth and that engaging with them is crucial for a well-rounded understanding of the world.

💡Prejudice

Prejudice is a preconceived opinion or judgment that is not based on reason or actual experience. The speaker in the video suggests that preconceived notions about philosophy can prevent people from engaging with serious questions and that overcoming these prejudices is essential for intellectual development.

💡Freedom

Freedom, in the context of the video, refers to the ability to make choices and decisions without undue constraints. The speaker warns that dismissing philosophical questions can limit our freedom by guiding us with unexamined mechanisms that may hinder our ability to make crucial choices.

💡Subscription

In the video, the speaker humorously encourages viewers to subscribe to the channel and click the bell to not miss any content. This is a common call to action in video content, urging viewers to engage with the channel for more of the type of content being discussed.

Highlights

Declaration of war on those who sabotage intellectual depth and avoid difficult problems with rhetorical questions.

Philosophy is not just pure speculation, but requires active engagement and rigorous thought.

The first intellectual deception is casually dismissing complex issues with 'it's philosophical'.

The second deception is the dismissive rhetorical question 'But after all...' which stifles discussion.

The third and worst deception is the claim 'As a scientist, I only describe, I don't judge.'

Scientists should not shy away from moral and philosophical questions outside their lab or library.

Philosophy provides thousands of answers to weigh, consider, and explore together.

Dismissing philosophical questions can lead to being guided by mechanisms that restrict freedom in crucial choices.

Philosophy has been taken seriously for centuries to help us engage with love, friendship, work, and politics.

The transcript criticizes the common misconception that philosophers are detached and only quote cliches.

Encourages adults to explore philosophy through resources like France Culture podcasts and Mr. Phi videos.

Philosophy is not just about asking the right questions, but also about learning to live through those questions.

The transcript calls for a subscription to the channel and clicking the bell for updates on such thought-provoking content.

A priori prejudices about philosophy prevent us from thinking about serious questions with depth and rigor.

The transcript humorously notes that every time someone uses a rhetorical question to avoid thinking, a kitten hangs itself in despair.

The power of rhetorical questions is criticized for ending discussions and imposing a general truth.

The transcript satirically suggests that the 'but after all' phrase is like a lead cover suffocating thought.

Transcripts

Vous le connaissez ce moment,

ce moment précis dans une conversation où l'intelligence achoppe où quelque chose résiste,

soudain quelqu'un lâche un "vaste question", un "mais ça c'est philosophique" ou pire

un "mais au fond toute parole n'est-elle pas un mensonge ?"

Chaque fois que quelqu'un traite un problème grave avec une question rhétorique, quelque part dans le monde,

un petit chat se pend de désespoir.

Aujourd'hui, je déclare la guerre à tous ceux qui sabotent le moindre début d'approfondissement,

à tous ceux qui bottent en touche quand un problème un peu ardu se présente,

à tout ce qui touche du bois pour qu'il ne leur arrive jamais de réfléchir,

à tous ceux qui boivent sans soif tout ce qu'on leur raconte,

sans l'éprouver à la lumière crue de la rigueur.

Générique !

Rendez-vous quand ? Dimanche à dix heures.

Rendez-vous où ? Dimanche à dix heures.

Rendez-vous compte ! Dimanche à dix heures.

Rendez-vous vous ! Dimanche à dix heures.

Rendez-nous l'argent ! Dimanche à dix heures.

Rendez-nous le temps ! Dimanche à dix heures.

Rendez-nous les gens ! Dimanche à dix heures.

On fait ça quand ? Dimanche à dix heures.

Imaginer que la philosophie c'est de la spéculation pure, de la pensée sans y penser,

c'est lourdement se tromper.

Philosopher c'est au contraire arrêter de procrastiner l'intelligence et s'y coller, enfin un instant.

J'aimerais aujourd'hui, ô spectateurs ailés, lumières de ma vie, feux de mes reins,

j'aimerais lever le voile sur trois supercheries qui signent la mort de l'esprit.

La première, la plus grossière consiste en un désinvolte : "Non mais ça c'est philosophique."

Justement si c'est philosophique, attelons-nous y prenons un moment pour démêler nos incohérences,

dissoudre nos fausses croyances. On prend le tarot, on l'écorne, on le plie, on en fait jolis confettis soigneusement.

La deuxième, plus vicieuse mais tout aussi agaçante se traduit par une question rhétorique :

"Mais après tout..."

(avec un ton méprisant) Mais après tout...

Terrible ce "mais après tout", fatal ce "mais après tout" !

Que dis-je ? Catabatique ce "mais après tout" !

Mais après tout, est-ce que le barbare ce n'est pas celui qui croit à la barbarie ?

Un couvercle de plomb surmonté d'un petit four s'est juché sur la pensée.

Elle suffoque.

La discussion est coupée nette par ces phrases qui sonnent comme des arguments d'autorité.

Rendez les armes, ya rien à dire !

C'est le pouvoir meurtrier de la question rhétorique

qui montre que Tristan a bien suivi pendant le cours de philo de monsieur Redondon en terminale,

mais qui en imposant une vérité générale

fait apparaître tout contre exemple comme un tatillonage de mauvais aloi.

Et vient la troisième objection à l'intelligence,

l'ultime coup bas, le pire, le pire entendez-vous

celui qui doit être poursuivi et démoli à grands coups de bâton jusqu'à ce que ouille ouille ouille et douloureux trépas s'en suivent,

le Judas du pourquoi, le Ganelon de la réflexion, le Manuel Valls du philosophe.

C'est l'inénarrable :

"Bof, non mais moi, en tant que scientifique, je ne juge pas, je décris."

Biologistes, sociologues, anthropologues,

imaginez une armée de petits chats qui se pendent, un peuple de boules de poils qui gémit, le cri de détresse de la mignonitude universelle.

Qu'un sociologue, en armes tout bardé de ces fameuses lunettes de sociologues, rechigne à spéculer sur la légitimité selon lui de certaines pratiques,

qu'il s'acharne tant bien que mal à mettre son jugement moral de côté,

tant mieux ! Il est pertinent et même nécessaire que dans le cadre de sciences descriptives, on se refuse à faire entrer des dilemmes moraux.

Mais rien n'interdit aux scientifiques, une fois qu'il est sorti du labo ou de la bibliothèque

et qu'il a ôté ses proverbiales lunettes de scientifiques,

de s'interroger méticuleusement sur les notions que n'aborde pas sa science.

Une approche nous empêche de nous demander sérieusement si toute vérité mérite d'être dite ?

Laissons-la de côté, pour une autre tout aussi méticuleuse mais qui permet d'interroger plus personnellement les concepts en jeu.

Finalement, un problème grave des a priori sur la philosophie, c'est qu'ils nous interdisent de penser les questions vraiment sérieuses

Amour, amitié, travail, politique,

ces questions y apparaissent sur un piédestal,

intouchables ou ridiculisées à coup de questions rhétoriques à moitié ironique,

ces a priori sont peut-être nourris par les préjugés que l'on a avant même de découvrir cette matière au lycée.

On imaginait ces philosophes, trônant sur des systèmes lointains, autour d'eux gravitaient des citations papillotes

"Il n'y a pas de génie sans un grain de folie, Aristote"

Et nombreux seront les élèves qui garderont cette vision sans examiner vraiment les arguments les plus frappants de ces penseurs,

qui pour eux n'offrent rien, des penseurs radins.

Mais maintenant que l'on est adulte,

nombreux sont les lieux où on peut se renseigner sur ces questions : les podcasts de France Culture et les vidéos de Monsieur Phi pour ne pas les citer.

Non. La philosophie n'est pas là que pour poser les bonnes questions, elle apporte 1000 pistes de réponses à peser et soupeser et à creuser

ensemble et nous permet vraiment d'apprendre à vivre.

Prendre avec dérision ces questions, c'est se condamner à être guidé par des mécanismes qui entraveront un jour ou l'autre notre liberté lors de choix cruciaux.

Amour, amitié, travail, politique.

Bien qu'elles évoquent les promesses d'un marabout de boîtes aux lettres,

les questions que propose de résoudre la philosophie ont été prises au sérieux depuis des siècles à nous de nous y engager dès que le contexte le permet.

Et vous ? Acceptez-vous la capitulation de l'âpre réflexion,

la triste abolition des profondes pensées ?

Pour y remédier, pourquoi ne pas commencer par vous abonner à cette jeune chaîne et cliquez sur la cloche pour ne rien rater, allez-y c'est fastoche.