Theatrics In Contemporary Philosophy -- Why I'm Against It

"What is a spell, but words declared and crafted with perfect intention and powerful belief wrapped within?" -- John Duran

(Background music)

Introduction

Let's face it, extensive reading isn't for everyone, even when the subject matter isn't philosophy. There's a growing trend away from reading and towards watching videos and livestreams. The main reason I don't create videos frequently is because I cannot breathe whenever I talk, and I'm not fond of choking myself just to communicate.

This shift isn't just about replacing reading with another form of media; it's also about entertainment. Videos and livestreams engage both our eyes and ears, making them more appealing to many people. This raises an interesting question: What would the future of content hold, philosophical or otherwise, if there were a much greater demand for theatrics-based videos than for traditional, recorded readings?

Truth be told, people's attention spans have generally decreased. For some, books have been replaced by videos, livestreams, and even "stories." There's also a general shift towards a more personal, less "official" approach, where content is conveyed more like a friendly conversation between the presenter and their audience. It's as if content today is less about figures of authority and more about entertainers whose primary goal is to engage their viewers. They might even speak to us in a casual, "bro-like" style.

A prime example of this trend is the YouTube channel "PhilosophyTube," run by a transgender philosopher who goes beyond simply delivering philosophical messages. They incorporate a variety music, change attire -- all in the same video, as if it were a fashion, rather than a proper discourse. They generally project a more entertaining persona than your average, old-school lecturer, who might spend their time reading and writing rather than baking a cake to celebrate reaching one million subscribers on YouTube.

Why in the world should we condition and encourage people to retain their short-attention span, and reward them with visual nonesense, along with giving them "appetizers", as if a philosophy content production enterprise needs filler content, as if it were an anime? Should we make philosophy that shallow a presentation, just to make it more accessible?

Content Creation in the Age of Entertainment

The philosopher in question has made philosophical content more accessible by employing a theatrical approach, foreshadowing a shift in the future of content across various media channels, regardless of the topic at hand.

People seem to subscribe not only to the message itself but also to the manner in which it is delivered, including the visuals. And sometimes, the content creator's personality matters as well, especially for those unfamiliar with the ad-hominem fallacy.

American Activist Eleanor Roosevelt said: “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people”. In this day and age, one of the reasons people may matter more than the ideas they communicate and the events they experience, is because the world is full of "small people". People who care more about things related to the ad-hominem fallacy, even though it should be clear to the rational man and woman why it's a fallacy in the first place. It's a fallacy because in philosophical discourse, the ideas exchanged matter far more than the people who exchange them.

By the same token, I don't care that Ms. Thorn is transgender woman, nor that she is left-wing and so on. What matters to me is my critique of using theatrics as part of a philosophy discourse, which is unnecessary for our ideas to be exchanged sufficently. I view it as something unfortunate that people matter as people and not as content creators because it is the content delievered that should be matter, just like in philosophy itself.

And those who fail to realize it, fail to understand that philosophy can often be a ruthless, unforgiving logical method of understanding reality, that wouldn't necessarily encourage others to care for your feelings, attire, and the music you play in your form of medium. Why? Because they are irrelevant to the main course itself, that is the idea that is to be exchanged for your time of consuming and reflecting upon it.

(To be deeper, AKA "less small" per Mrs. Roosevelt's approach, we must be able to distinguish between "kli" and "tochen").

Theatrics are irrelevant and are thus redundant appetizers that can be unfortunately prioritized as "the main course" of a piece of media such as an article or a video.

The host of "PhilosophyTube," while competent and successful in their efforts, abandons the traditional way of conveying her ideas. Articles like this, it seems, will gradually fade into obscurity as people seek to satiate another internal void: the void of boredom. Entertainment, with its ability to answer to our diminishing attention spans, seems to be the only remedy in the age it is named after: Entertainment.

I'm not suggesting that everyone are so desperate that they are addicted to entertainment, even though do and thus became addicted to the dopamine hormone. For content creators like me who avoid theatrics, this audience is a goldmine. However, when videos gain popularity solely/mainly due to theatrics, the following question arises: Will people continue to read as they do now, even in a world without books as necessities? Could blogs themselves become obsolete, just as books might be, thus forcing you, the content creator, to assume an additional role: that of the entertainer? But not only an entertainer, necessarily, but a sort of a dopamine "drug dealer"?

Must we encourage people's increasing addiction to pleasure just for them to pay attention to us? Just for us to be relevant? Must we capitalize on our consumers' addictions? As you can see, this article touches not only social commentary but also ethical matters. Because dopamine is an addictive drug, and take note: According to Verywellhealth.com, high dopamine can cause things such as:

• Anxiety

• Excess energy or mania

• Increased feelings of stress

• Insomnia

• Aggression

• Hallucinations

Think of the morality here! Are we that desperate for attention, as content creators, that we might be willing, even if aware of the implications, to capitalize on people's pleasure addictions? Should philosophy be as addictive is our smartphones? Must we degrade philosophy that low for it to stay relevant in the eyes of others?

I've watched a few "PhilosophyTube" videos, and while I don't particularly relate to the host's style (baking cakes, digressing frequently, using multiple soundtracks, impersonating a "Russian spy," and so on), I can comprehend why they have such a large online following. There is a thirst for content that transcends mere words, mere writing or speaking. This thirst, I believe, stems from the average person's declining ability to focus on lengthy material, and a desperation for thrill-seeking.

I also suspect that appealing to people's emotions is easier than appealing to their intellect. In fact, it is often a logical fallacy. That is because emotional experiences are more memorable. After all, rationality is to be taught, in order for us to become more logical beings. That's while it may not come as naturally as emotion.

While I understand how entertainment can attract an audience, let's not forget that entertainment is not the core of philosophical content creation. The core of content creation, particularly in the philosophy niche, is conveying a message as concisely as possible. And as such, what should logically be prioritized is the message, and not, necessarily, the overall subjective experience of its consumption.

Employing theatrics can sometimes overshadow the message, prioritizing mere entertainment over serious, focused material.

One of my reasons for establishing Philosocom is to preserve the traditional approach to content creation, while still trying to adjust to the internetization of content. I aim to combat the rapid increase of low-attention-span content, by keeping you invested in my material, without feeding on any of your potential addictions and your potential inclinations for addictions. Unlike Heisenberg, I do not want my readers to be addicted to the content I provide.

After all, addictions have their own misfortunes, and it is immoral to cause misfortune to others for personal gain, correct?

Ms. Abigail Thorn. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaU6tI2pb3M&t=1243s

Contrary to the methodology of channels like "PhilosophyTube," I don't believe I need to be theatric just to be a good philosophy writer. It could be useful to display emotions from time to time, but not regularly. I want my readership to be invested, not addicted to pleasure rushes. All that is necessary is to deliver the message at hand, as comprehensively as possible, and be done with it.

No baking cakes, no pretending to be someone else just to convey an example, no pictures of my appearing in an extravagant manner. There is no need for any of this in philosophy, as the purpose of philosophy is NOT to entertain those who crave "bread and circuses." Philosophy is the study of the truth, period.

To clarify, I have no objections to "PhilosophyTube" itself; my criticism lies solely in their methodology, specifically their delivery style. I find it disheartening that attracting a large audience "necessitates" becoming an entertainer, as the host of that YouTube channel has done. It saddens me because. We aren't children. Some of us, at least. Infantility has become normalized.

Some of you may argue that one should adapt because "that's how the world is". However, that is a fallacy by itself. While I agree that adaptation is important, I see no reason to fully comply with norms, whether new or old, when they can cause so much suffering in this world, as in the example of pleasure addiction. If Philosocom can encourage people to read more, so be it. It can serve as another example of why people should rediscover the benefits of reading. In a word, my article empire might as well be able to improve your cognitive state.

A Commitment to Concise Communication: Preserving the Essence of Philosophy

While I may not attract as many viewers as the aforementioned YouTuber, I remain determined in my path to the traditional method of philosophizing: with the power of the written (or typed) word. Philosophy is not a spectacle; it is a discipline meant to be absorbed through clear communication, devoid of unnecessary decorations.

When we degrade philosophy into a form of "bread and circuses," we diminish its role as an intellectual exchange of insights, prioritizing mere theatrics over the essence that is philosophical discourse, which is just that. This misguided approach should not be the distinction of a true philosopher. After all, for our content to be taken seriously, WE need to be taken seriously as well.

Overreliance on entertainment can hinder our ability to engage with content that demands deeper thought, and in general, can make us weaker in mind. How come? To better endure things, information included, we need to be disciplined.

My Reflections On You, the Readership

As "Philosocomers," I trust your attention span enough to be presented with philosophy without the need for elaborate costumes, theatrical performances, or soap opera-style personas. I respect your ability to delve into extended texts, relying primarily on the power of words to convey philosophical concepts. I also value your time and believe that theatrics often disrespects the audience's time and effort.

While I occasionally incorporate background music, its presence is optional, never the central attraction. My focus remains on the clarity and substance of the ideas being presented.

Conclusion

In essence, a philosopher is not an entertainer; they are, first and foremost, communicators. Their purpose is not to appease or amuse but to stimulate independent thought, encourage critical examination, and open new avenues of inquiry about truth and the real world. Disagreement with a philosopher's stance is acceptable, but dismissing their work solely due to boredom is a fallacy of its own.

Content creators are not responsible for dictating our emotional reactions, either way. Unfortunately, we are not necessarily responsible if you became addicted to our content. As long as you consent to being addicted, you will risk being addicted. I, however, have no desire for that to occur, hence I avoid increasing dopamine in your brain using excessive emotion.

Thanks for reading.