Urban philosophy

Enso

Enso

Community Member
MBTI
INFJ
So,

I'm not sure if any of you watch this youtube channel I've posted below, but it's a guy that goes into abandoned buildings and warehouses and climbs skyscrapers without safety apparatuses. He also breaks into warehouses while people are in them and climbs them and has a look around. I like his videos where he goes into abandoned underground nuclear bunkers and stuff the most. Anyway the guy remains anonymous with his mask and he doesn't appear to steal anything or break anything or break his way in, it's all just kind of for the thrill and to explore places then he posts it on yt. Yet he still acknowledges he is trespassing (especially in active places). He decided to go into some philosophy after exploring an abandoned police station about why he should be able to break into places and not other people, while the arguments he raise are probably pretty weak, he does raise a good point on when does one follow the masses and when does one develop their own sense of moral compass (or at least that's the way I interpreted it). He really gives off an INTP/J or ISTP vibe

I'll post the actual video of his philosophy and I'll put a very cut-down transcript below: He talks about it in detail at 4:25


(2:23) So this is a police station.. I do not like police. I think I'm not alone in this, but not just "ahh fuck the police" I am not anti-police, I am anti-police arresting me, they can fuck with everybody else - I need that, to feel safe to actually keep doing this. Which may sound contradictory, but an individual in society does not need police, an Individual in society does not need police, masses need police"

(4:25) Everybody to everybody is everybody else - that is not the conclusion, that is the cause of these rules making everybody the same when they know that their an individual. There's this whole confusion going on when do I function along with the massess and when do I function by my own motivations, What are my own motivations in general? Society makes it very confusing to upon things that you want because when you live close to someone else it's so easy to be influenced by someone else choices and most of the time someone else's choices is to get you out of their way so they can do what they want, but what they want is to get you out of their way and not stay in someone else's way - it's confusing. That's why I like exploring cities...

(7:27) The society as I understand it doesn't exist.. It's an illusion.

The argument goes on for a bit but I think he's pointing to a well known axiom or argument starter. I donno, seems like multiple arguments in one, but I can see this would have been argued by someone before.

 
Last edited:
The reason he's "confused" is because he has no cooperation skills and rejects them on some level.
But cooperation is foundational to building any society.
He simply doesn't want to live in a society, but wants all/most of the comforts of one.
Basically, he is still a child. Not active within the mechanisms that do change how society functions, yet critical of them.
 
Yeah, I'm not really sold on the philosophy either. It could be summarized as, "Rules are for people who are less enlightened than me," and while I can admit to having felt this way at times (for example, every time I have to do an annoying paperwork bureaucracy question), it's pretty hard to create a coherent system of law without the principle of the rule of law, namely that nobody is above the law and you don't get to make an exception for yourself just because you can come up with an impassioned moral argument that nobody ever thought of.

On the other hand—history has examples in which civil disobedience was the only way to defeat unjust laws, because quiet advocacy was incapable of matching the urgency and scale of the injustice.

But I don't get the impression that this YouTuber is breaking laws with a specific altruistic or activist project in mind. He just likes exploring abandoned shit and doesn't care that it's illegal. And I wish he would say that more firmly—"I am doing this because I like it, and I don't care that it's wrong"—rather than contriving all this pseudo-philosophy about the "masses" and "the individual."
 
A friend of mine does outrageous photography like this all over the world. Most of it is trespassing into old buildings, new construction, ancient sites, train tunnels, etc. I feel awkward about name-dropping him, so I won't. There is a genre of photography that breaks into abandoned buildings. That was how he got his start in his teens. Most of what he does is high risk so he's erased most of his online portfolios and goes under a fake name in the one place I know where to find his work publicly.

As a kid and teen in the 80s and early 90s, we often broke into old buildings and old (military) forts, and even broke into our high school just because we could. We got away with it. It wasn't even a big deal. I'm a goody two shoes and wouldn't have done it if there was a high risk that we'd get into trouble if we got caught.


Nothing he is doing or saying is new.
 
Asa said:
Nothing he is doing or saying is new.
Click to expand...

I agree I guess I posted it no so much for what he does, but his arguments and specifically his second argument about the bar I listed below:

Argument 1: Contradiction
So this is a police station.. I do not like police. I think I'm not alone in this, but not just "ahh fuck the police" I am not anti-police, I am anti-police arresting me, they can fuck with everybody else - I need that, to feel safe to actually keep doing this. Which may sound contradictory, but an individual in society does not need police, an Individual in society does not need police, masses need police"
He does not consider himself a part of the masses, but wants the massess to exist so he can also exist (duality). Similarly, he wants to be protected by those masses while not being considered part of the masses and their subsequent laws. Ok, so I don't have a problem with that, so who then gets to be "the individuals" and then once we group them they just become another groups. He's arguing well, no there's just ME! While this argument is weak, he's essentially saying ...it may be contradictory but this philosophy to my life is based of my individual principals for which I do not (claim) to steal, hurt or damage anything (he does damage things getting in but let's pretend he doesn't).

- I can't really argue with this logic, to say it's immoral you would have to say that his philosophy somehow hurts people imo, but essentially because he is not severely breaking the law he is out of sight and out of mind to the masses and thus functions on his moral principals.

Argument 2: My whole rationalization of why it's ok for me to do this shit and not all of you....everybody to everybody is everybody else.
Everybody to everybody is everybody else - that is not the conclusion, that is the cause of these rules making everybody the same when they know that their an individual. There's this whole confusion going on when do I function along with the massess and when do I function by my own motivations, What are my own motivations in general? Society makes it very confusing to upon things that you want because when you live close to someone else it's so easy to be influenced by someone else choices and most of the time someone else's choices is to get you out of their way so they can do what they want, but what they want is to get you out of their way and not stay in someone else's way - it's confusing. That's why I like exploring cities instead of walking around the city centers and stuff and just going to bars because that is just confusing to me....

- He goes on to say you do not interact with (people) at the bar because you do not interact with everyone in the bar and thus you only interact as masses' would with individual groups with individual group identities, which leaves no room for a fully individualized person separate of the masses, as state in which he believes there is no society and as he said earlier "because when you live close to someone else it's so easy to be influenced by someone else choices and most of the time someone else's choices".

- Once again, I can't really fault his argument to any great degree, the only thing is that if people were "individuals" separate from society he would not be safe himself, but he himself acknowledges the paradox (he refers to it as confusion). I have heard JP quote similar (but different) arguments in relation to the need for individualized responsibilities over group identities.
- I mean to be honest you could argue this is an "self-actualized" individual (if he were completely crime free) on the contrary you could argue he's just an over-rationalizing criminal.

Argument 3: Is society an illusion?
My bar example was based upon interaction being mandatory if everybody recognizes everybody else as themselves, they would actually interact with everybody if they wanted to get in close proximity specifically for a bar, it's a place where people interact, but when you walk past people don't talk to everybody they talk in their own little groups, they interact with people who are similar to them similar to their "individuality'.

So it's very confusing (a paradox) even the word "everybody" existing to (indicative of a singularity) it's false. Does that mean society is not "everyone" that society (as I understand it) actually doesn't exist and is an illusion. The laws are not based on trusting people their based on fear and consequences. There is no "everybody society" there are just people who live in close proximity to each other because it's beneficial to get help from other people, but in order to make sure everybody helps each other they themselves have to realize they got to make everyone else afraid of everyone else.

uuu said:
It could be summarized as, "Rules are for people who are less enlightened than me"
Click to expand...
- This one is interesting and multi-faceted, but once again yah I agree you could just argue he's an over rationalizing criminal that is the only "enlightened one".
Wyote said:
Basically, he is still a child. Not active within the mechanisms that do change how society functions, yet critical of them.
Click to expand...
Intelligent? or just self-centered rationalization, I guess he would have to defend his argument(s).
 
Last edited:
Enso said:
Intelligent? or just self-centered rationalization, I guess he would have to defend his argument(s).
Click to expand...

He seems like a smart person, his feelings about things just aren't directed in some healthy directions imo.
We all rationalize in self-centered ways so I'm not being critical of that part or speaking on his overall intelligence.
I just have found that it's mostly young directionless people that do this kind of more grandiose philosophizing.
And INTJs like you said lol
 
What a weaselly little bastard. Who cares what you want? Why should it be about you? Developing your own moral compass is antithetical to the only purpose of morality.

The prioritization of tight-knit groups among individuals does not make society an illusion, it's an overarching category that binds people on a fundamental philosophical level. That's laws, culture, and to add to his confusion, morality. Contemporary society is dysfunctional in some of these aspects for a lack of concern and debate about that fundamental philosophy (which is theology), but it's still something that shapes you in a deep sense.
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
Contemporary society is dysfunctional in some of these aspects for a lack of concern and debate about that fundamental philosophy (which is theology), but it's still something that shapes you in a deep sense.
Click to expand...

How do we promote functional theology :thonking:
 
Wyote said:
How do we promote functional theology :thonking:
Click to expand...

By means of the whip, the rod, and the lash.
Hellfire.gif


Yaaaas,
Ian
 
I wonder if he realises he’s a ghost?

There’s a tremendous fascination in old abandoned buildings - something clings to them from the past, from when they were full of people. It’s not the same with old buildings that are still in full use because the vibes from new people overlay the old and I can’t hear them as easily.

The philosophy bit is just a sideshow to fill out his channel with debatables imho. He’s just practicing for after he’s got no body anymore, if only he realised it. He’s talking quite a lot of nonsense really- but I like that he avoids harm to the properties, even though that’s as much to avoid attention as on principle. But then he sprays himself all over the internet, on location, so it’s being caught in the act he’s avoiding and the principle seems to be really there.

He seems really young for his age. A bit of a Peter Pan really. Mostly harmless I’d guess :)
 
Margeret Thatcher tried "there's no such thing as society" in what, 1989? The problem with this kind of argument is that it rests on semantic ambiguity: First you make the obvious, banal point that "society is comprised of individuals, therefore 'society' is just a meaningless abstraction and if we removed this word from our vocabulary then the individuals who make it up wouldn't literally disappear" and then you skip over to "therefore, 'social' concepts like laws, rules, and clothing are bullshit and I can do whatever the fuck I want" which just—it doesn't follow, you know?

Multiplication isn't an "illusion" just because it's repeated addition. And multiplication is a very useful concept for when you want to talk about things like "the total number of toes in this auditorium." Likewise: The fact that society is an abstract concept doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to use it as a way of reasoning about complex interactions among individuals.

Or to be even snarkier: The individual is an illusion; it's just an abstraction on top of so many vestiges.
 
Last edited:
Wyote said:
He seems like a smart person, his feelings about things just aren't directed in some healthy directions imo.
We all rationalize in self-centered ways so I'm not being critical of that part or speaking on his overall intelligence.
I just have found that it's mostly young directionless people that do this kind of more grandiose philosophizing.
Click to expand...

I thought this about this, too, but that would bring me down a rabbit hole of all the mistakes I made that I rationalized by adding deep philosophy and meaning when there probably wasn't any. I think anyone looking for deep meaning, deep thought, or a different path is at risk of adding layers of meaning to the things they want to do to justify their choices. The meaning isn't always there. People on this forum seem at higher risk of following that pattern than some others.
 
Asa said:
I thought this about this, too, but that would bring me down a rabbit hole of all the mistakes I made that I rationalized by adding deep philosophy and meaning when there probably wasn't any. I think anyone looking for deep meaning, deep thought, or a different path is at risk of adding layers of meaning to the things they want to do to justify their choices. The meaning isn't always there. People on this forum seem at higher risk of following that pattern than some others.
Click to expand...
I agree. If you look at the shape of what he's doing rather the content, then he has courage, but he tempers it with caution, he's enterprising and sets himself challenging goals which he achieves. He adjusts himself on the fly to unexpected circumstances and adapts to them successfully as far as I can see. He's not at all bad at communicating and holding his audience's attention, and obviously can handle basic video technology. He sounds pretty smart. I think he probably gets a kick as well out of being one up on the rest of us - which possibly means he's reacting to feeling inferior deep down either now or in the past. The philosophy is just a bit of froth on the top I suspect.

He's got quite a lot going for him - he could use his skills in lots of other ways if he wanted to. Motivation and meaning are what points the bow and fires the arrow, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill and sometimes into the middle of nowhere. A slight change in the arrow's direction could make a lot of difference.
 
John K said:
Motivation and meaning are what points the bow and fires the arrow, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill and sometimes into the middle of nowhere. A slight change in the arrow's direction could make a lot of difference.
Click to expand...

Words to live by.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top