Urban philosophy

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.

 

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.

- 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".

Intelligent? or just self-centered rationalization, I guess he would have to defend his argument(s).

 

That's a bit harsh..............expecting him to make good contact through clothing.