Game

Comment Responses: How Does Deadpool Know He's a Comic Book Character? | Idea Channel



Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here:

Tweet us!
Idea Channel Facebook!
Talk about this episode on reddit!
Idea Channel IRC!
Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com

Mike responds to comments from the “How Does Deadpool Know He’s a Comic Book Character?” episode.

—————————————-­­­­­­­—————————-

Skip Past the Deadpool Kills The Marvel Universe Spoilers!

—————————————-­­­­­­­—————————-
Check out our awesome T-Shirts!!

Designed by:

—————————————-­­­­­­­—————————-

COMMENTS:

Fifteen_inches

Bum Luck

Ninjaboi333

Dashery

Dale MacKinnon

Eoin_Dooley

Aditya C

—————————————-­­­­­­—————————-

SOURCES & THINGS:

—————————————-­­­­­­—————————-

Nguồn: https://paranormal-association.com/

Xem thêm bài viết khác: https://paranormal-association.com/game/

33 Comments
  1. Sanders Noblitt 5 months ago
    Reply

    So, is Ryan Reynolds channeling Deadpool?

  2. ecvsio 5 months ago
    Reply

    Why is this specific to deadpool, though all of other fourth wall breaks are usually the same

  3. Juan Morales 5 months ago
    Reply

    deadpool's mind is working at such a fast pace, it studies everything. deadpool knows just about everything if he decides to think about it.

  4. Ben Cox 5 months ago
    Reply

    In convergence brainiac discover that he was in a comic

  5. Trevor Trowbridge 5 months ago
    Reply

    Odd idea, could Deadpool's breaking the fourth wall be a sort of coping mechanism? In the other video it was established that he is constantly in Pain, and often times either dying or on the brink of death. Could it be that the boxes and his idea of himself being a comic book character have come from a form of escapism to keep himself safe. Like the idea for him is that, because none of this is real it can't hurt me, because rather than simply curling up into a ball, or going ballistic, he created distance between himself and the world around him as a safety blanket of sorts. So that rather than accepting that the hell he lives in is his real life, he hallucinates these things to keep from breaking down.
    P.S. Sorry half-asleep, done rambling.

  6. Amashi Zaino 5 months ago
    Reply

    I suppose that the Deadpool Killustrated had been overlooked. In those spoilers! he then takes on the characters from the classical literary works in an attempt to kill the very IDEA ITSELF of heroes, he figures that taking out the origins and inspirations for our modern characters will make his sort of "quest" to free everyone come to pass.

  7. freaky108 5 months ago
    Reply

    Did you mean to Deadpool yourself right at the end? Hahah "If you would not humor me, I would love to continue having [conversation] with myself. That sounds sad". Your loneliness drives you to deeper dialogue eh?

  8. Josh Davis 5 months ago
    Reply

    Did you get a huge influx of viewers from Scott or something, or are you just being polite? Not gonna lie, I came here from Nerdsync, and then binge watched a bunch of your videos.

  9. Robert Marlowe 5 months ago
    Reply

    Philosophy is made up of methods of argument. Science is one of those methods of argument. Science is a type of philosophy.

  10. Yamikaiba123 5 months ago
    Reply

    How about you just do a video on it ('What does Philosophy have to do with Science' or something), inject some history into it (the Math & Computing revolution comes to mind) and the whole audience can talk about it in the comments section! It's especially relevant now with Bill Nye's latest 'Big Think' video on Philosophy (or a straw-man thereof) that is inspiring facepalms across the internet.

  11. Will Burns 5 months ago
    Reply

    Depending on how you look at it, Deadpool might be the only sane character in the Marvel Universe. He might also be utterly insane. On the one hand he not only knows of the reader's existence but of our world, even going so far as to regularly reference OUR popular culture. He is the only character who is always aware that he is a comic book character, making light of that fact and even enjoying interacting with this truth that only he can see. "Does believing you're the last sane man on the planet make you crazy?" – I've always loved this quote from the film 'I, Robot' because it sums up just how subjective our view of reality is and I think it fits quite nicely here.

  12. ShuraiyaBascud135 5 months ago
    Reply

    (A week late, and I approach the science/philosophy argument from more of a scientific background, so bear with me philosophers, but) I view philosophy as something of a scientific drawing board, a place where sciences are founded and established before we can easily apply them; I've sometimes referred to philosophy as the nursery where baby sciences are raised before going out into the world.
    Take biology, for instance. Before we developed more advanced medical/scientific practices that allowed us to understand biology on a more basic level, the basics of biology (the significance of important bodily fluids, the importance of various major organs) were discussed and established by ancient philosophers. Astronomy, physics, and psychology all have their basis in philosophy, as philosophy is often the first tool or lens that we have to study new information. Even today, as we continue to progress towards the development of artificial intelligence, philosophy is the main field that discusses the ramifications and purposes behind artificial intelligence while science is struggling to catch up.
    Basically, though science is objectively more useful and reliable when faced with quantifiable issues, science is limited by its strict ties to reality. Philosophy allows a conversation to be had before technology and human capability develops enough to let us be more practical.

  13. bnerd1 5 months ago
    Reply

    i find Deadpool: Killustrated very intresting

  14. Emilio Marchetti 5 months ago
    Reply

    Perhaps I'm being too simplistic but whereas science's perpetual axiom is one of questioning, not only what's been stablished but also future knowledge (at least it should), philosophical treaties try to debunk the conventional knowledge on the subject but don't admit future arguments. Where Newton stood on the shoulders of giants and later giants stood on his in turn; I think socrates had to demolish the sophists and Kant's Categorical Imperative was built amongst the ruble of the Socratic virtues. I realize I got a bit metaphorical at the end but it was just to paint a picture (oops, I did it again)…

  15. Brad S 5 months ago
    Reply

    Why is science important? It deals with the physical world, and is an important tool to improving our lives.

    Why do we need scientists? Sometimes the philosophers start talking about their ideas as if they were absolute truths, and science is the best tool we have for evaluating those types of claims.

    Why do we need philosophers? Sometimes the scientists start talking like they are the only ones who can know things, forgetting that there are limits to the scientific method.

  16. TacticusPrime 5 months ago
    Reply

    Scientists can suggest hypotheses that can be demonstrated to be wrong. Science, operating under as few assumptions as possible, investigates the actual nature of reality. The very fact that we can have the discussion is down to the accomplishments of science in that area. We've had philosophy, even the esoterics, a very long time without much changing our condition. Science, as a discipline, is still relatively new and see where it has vaulted us.

  17. Cory Gerich 5 months ago
    Reply

    Heres an idea i don't think was brought up yet…. Because Deadpool can't die… the only way the world has any meaning, is if he is being observed.

  18. oldwornoutjeans 5 months ago
    Reply

    brace yourself, I have thought way to long about this as a scientist at a Liberal Arts College
    Science is valued in our society. It has brought about lots of things (computers, vaccines, fertilizer) which indisputably improve human life. However, it is viewed as a Black Box which pumps out nice things. Because of this, people do not understand the limitations of science and simply worship it as all-knowing and all-powerful. They have taken scientific values such as rationalism, empiricism and objectivity and brought them into mainstream thought (see The Enlightenment) as a part of that worship.
    However this gets super sticky because we dont know what the limitations of science are. There is no set definition of science (believe me, if you make one up we can find an exception) and the culture of Science changes. Paradigms and values shift as well as many scientists failing to acknowledge/agree on science's limitations.
    There is no reason why rationalism, empiricism and objectivity are better than the values of philosophy (granted rationalism is one of them). We just know we get shiny phones from those values.

    Recommended reading: Science & Its Limits by Del Ratzsch (It focuses on the dialogue between Science and Christianity. It is skewed in favor of Christianity but it is still worth a read)

    TL;DR Since we worship science as a society, we like those values more.

  19. M. Alan Thomas II 5 months ago
    Reply

    Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a reasonable follow-up reading to Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding." /philosophy-of-science

  20. Marianne Thomas 5 months ago
    Reply

    Don't know whether it's still the case, but in OxBridge, Physics was traditionally taught under the title "Natural Philosophy". I think that without asking the great philosophical questions, we lack the platform to come up with the questions whose existence necessitated the building of CERN for example. Without philosophy, Stephen Hawking wouldn't have known what questions he was asking. I'm a vet so more biology based, but love physics, and it is intrinsically linked with philosophy. How else do you explain the Big Bang Theory? (I mean the show, but the question stands either way)

  21. AlanKey86 5 months ago
    Reply

    Hello PBS peeps! …peebs,
    I think the main strength of science is its predictive power. This is both it's ability to forecast (based on the observation that some patterns in nature repeat) and also help us design things (i.e. it's application in engineering)

    Another strength is it's reproducability and how that allows for objectivity. We may not agree on how we ought harness nuclear energy, but science reliably shows us how we can harness nuclear energy.

    My final thought is on the interplay between philosophy and science. In my experience, philosophy oftens seems to be led (or informed by) scientific discovery. I don't think this makes science "better" but it does, in my view, make philosophy submissive to science.

  22. not BANGERTV 5 months ago
    Reply

    Maybe he just goofs like he is in a comic book like larping.

  23. garayur 5 months ago
    Reply

    Science is a methodology for determining objective reality. Its about determining what is real as closely as we are able. You can use it to make predictions based on the information and have those predictions come true. Science isn't so great at making things relatable. It is primarily about the objective and bringing that in the the subjective experience can require a different technique.

    Philosophy's strength is in exploring the subjective and codifying it. It can describe human experiences and apply logic to them to explore their meaning and implications. Ethics is primarily an exercise in philosophy and I don't think many will argue the value of ethics. Discussions of Aethetics and Art can give useful frameworks for exploring out experiences. They are valuable in how they shape our thoughts and the way we can explore our own experiences.

  24. ProposMontreal 5 months ago
    Reply

    what? Is Mike dating Meme Molly? (sorry if i'm late to the gossip news)

  25. Jonathan Seamon 5 months ago
    Reply

    Isn't science a sub-discipline of philosophy? if so, the question of relative importance is nonsensical. I could see a case against non-actionable philosophy as defensible, but that would also be a case against most of abstract mathematics.

  26. ElementalofAir 5 months ago
    Reply

    I agree with you, Mike, I've always loved learning about philosophy AND science (and I'm very religious too – shocking, I know). I think science is important because it is a way for people to learn more about how the natural world functions and how to increase human's comfort and ability to act upon the world around them and it's also just fun. Who doesn't wonder about what's at the bottom of a black hole?

    Philosophy and religion seems to me to be more about the why of things as well as a way of exploring the surest way to human happiness. I think Socrates or Aristotle said something about happiness being the end in itself. There's no reason to want happiness beyond happiness's sake, and I think that philosophy and religion seem to be methods for acquiring human happiness. So both science and philosophy are about making people happier, just via different means (exterior and interior).

    If anything, I see science as being able to enhance philosophy and vice versa. Like, talking about phrenology and including the effects of pain on a neurobiological level or something like that.

  27. Scereyaha 5 months ago
    Reply

    I can't help but think that those who think of philosophy as having some direct contradiction to the "hard" sciences have not had much occasion to study human biochemistry. When you start to witness and understand how our mental and emotional experiences directly affect and are influenced by our physical bodies (as if one, and even to the point of changing our DNA) you start to see mental and emotional experiences as an EXTENSION of what is considered purely physical (and therefore somehow more legitimate to some), and by extension, I find it to be unavoidable that you would subsequently come to see things like sociology, psychology and philosophy as necessary and highly scientific fields of study, not in contradiction to science (somehow existing and theorizing in spite of it, as a separate and less valid/logical/reasonable thing) but rather an important and often INFORMING part of it.

  28. Maplestrip 5 months ago
    Reply

    Well, philosophy is the groundwork for science. I'd argue philosophy is "more important" for various reasons, though that argument seems silly to me from the outset.

    Philosophy constitutes to our understanding of logic itself, after all.

  29. pyro1324 5 months ago
    Reply

    Philosophy was the first form of science, without philosophical ideas to prove science would not exist.

  30. Alexander Larkin 5 months ago
    Reply

    Mike,
    On the topic of science vs philosophy, please read Picasso at the Lapin Agile by Steve Martin (yes, that Steve Martin). It's on of my favorite plays and I think you'll enjoy how it relates to this conversation.

  31. Mighty Ethan 5 months ago
    Reply

    The point where I start to think "we need to get some scientists in here" with respect to philosophy is when philosophers start making pronouncements about the actual functioning of the real world based upon chains of reasoning without making any effort to verify their conclusions.

    For example, my brother-in-law had a class in college where at one point they were discussing mind-body duality, and they talked about a philosopher from around (I believe) the 1950's who had taken the position that the mind and body are absolutely separate because it is impossible that you could ever look at an image of a brain and determine what the brain was thinking. The thing is, that's just not true. We now have the ability to with brains scans to read a person's mind to the point of being able to determine what a person is looking at (beach, building, animal, etc), or play as audio a word they are thinking, and there's every reason to believe that technology will continue to advance. And I understand this guy was philosophizing before such technology was available, but according to my b-i-l it was presented in class as a valid viewpoint today (or rather a year ago), despite the fact that it is objectively untrue.

    Philosophy is great for addressing metaphysical issues that by nature are outside the realm of science. I obviously enjoy philosophy or I wouldn't watch Idea Channel. But when people use it to draw conclusions about the functioning of the material world, and then especially when they don't make any effort to determine whether those conclusions accurately reflect the material world, it grates on me, and more than that it can be dangerous when people take actions based on beliefs that have no basis in reality.

    Which is not to say that every scientific theory turns out to accurately reflect the way the world works, but at least there verification is part of the process, and any inaccuracies will be discovered and addressed eventually.

  32. TheSicknessUntoDeath 5 months ago
    Reply

    "What about science is important and influential?"

    And please don't attempt to use science to try and answer that meta-science challenge, because that would be begging the question.

  33. bobjim245 5 months ago
    Reply

    this channel helps me so much, I suffer from paranoid schizophrenia and your amazing channel helps me get through the day, would you do a mental health themed episode? anything really I am curious to see where your mind will take us 🙂

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

You may also like