A classic—with an interesting philosophical theme: authenticity versus safety and comfort. However, it is more like an impulse than a serious exploration of the significance of metaphysical the truth of reality. 7/10.

Yellowstone is a Western TV show about a group of cowboys protecting their ranch from land developers. I don’t recommend it, though it is better than your average TV show. I like the concept—it’s a kind of fresh mix between a cowboy story and a political drama. The story and characters are engaging and unique.

That said, there are quite a few things I disliked. None of the main characters are virtuous, which gets tiring after a while. I did appreciate the depiction of what I’d consider an approximation of an ideal love between two characters—especially after watching shows like Twin Peaks or Boardwalk Empire, where everyone seems to be cheating all the time.

The show also leans too heavily on convenience rather than properly introducing story elements. Its political undertones—both conservative and environmentalist—are very on-the-nose and full of clichés. Whenever a character “doesn’t get their life” on the ranch or does something “bad,” they’re inevitably from California.

In terms of storytelling craft, it just doesn’t operate on the same level as something like The Wire. You have to suspend your disbelief more often than you should—it feels like the writers took some shortcuts.

I love movies that are stylized like that —- the old-school music playing, the voiceover narration —- the vibe. What do we learn? Never fuck a BPD women. 8.5/10.

David Hume is an empiricist who believes that all of our knowledge stems from experience. I did a summary of parts of his book here.

There are two interesting results from this paper that lead to an intriguing interpretation. The first result is that believing in induction—reasoning based on experience (as opposed to deduction, which is reasoning based on our mind alone, like in mathematics, where you don’t need sensory experiences)—is unjustified. That is a wild claim because we rely on induction all the time in our daily lives: the cereal is empty, so someone must have eaten it; my street is blocked, so there must have been an accident; my room looks trashed, so someone must have come in and done it. All these, and many more, are examples of induction. Yet Hume argues that believing in induction is completely unjustified, and I think his book presents this argument quite convincingly.

The second result is that we are unjustified in believing that cause and effect will hold in the future. This means we can’t know that, in a few minutes, gravity won’t suddenly invert and make everything fly upward for no reason, or that a unicorn won’t suddenly appear in front of us.

Both the rejection of induction and the uncertainty of cause and effect follow directly from Hume’s empiricism. However, these conclusions seem so counterintuitive—so absurd—that this can be interpreted as an example of reductio ad absurdum: if a theory leads to absurd results, then the theory itself must be flawed.

In a way, by highlighting these positions and their absurdity, Hume undermines his own philosophy—reducing it to the absurd and untenable.

What is Hume’s response to this? Not my problem. Instead of reconsidering whether this might invalidate empiricism, he simply accepts it.

Of all existing things some are in our power, and others are not in our power. Within our power are opinion, aim, desire, aversion, and, in a word, everything which is our own doing. Things not in our power include the body, property, reputation, office, and, in a word, everything which is not our own doing.

What we can control naturally is not governed, restricted or constrained by others; what we can’t control is naturally governed, restricted and constrained by others. If you mistake what’s constrained for what’s free, and what others control for what you control, you won’t get your way, you’ll be unhappy.

But if you take for your own only that which is your own, and view what belongs to others just as it really is, then no one will ever compel you, no one will restrict you, you will find fault with no one, you will accuse no one, you will do nothing against your will; no one will hurt you, you will not have an enemy, nor will you suffer any harm.

Seek at once, therefore, to be able to say to every unpleasing impression, ‘You are but an impression, and not at all what you seem to be’. And then examine it by those rules which you have; and first and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are within our own power, or those which are not; and if it concerns anything beyond our power, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you.

~ Epictetus, The Enchiridion Chapter 1