Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Filehaus
Recent
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Orb: On the Movements of the Earth 1x9 Reaction Extended (YT link below) (Patreon)

Published:
2025-07-28 01:00:03
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Videos

  • 505856235.mp4

Downloads

  • 505856235.mp4

Missing 1 video.

Content

In Orb 1x9, This is What It Means... To Learn Something, I Think, no pressure Oczy, the fate of the cosmos rests on your shoulders. All you have to do is look up at your greatest fear.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YouTube Link:

https://youtu.be/4yNUOSXXWqw

Comments

bl0odm1st

This episode always stuck with me as one of my favorites. I love how the episode title feels like the author directly speaking to us. It almost comes across as if the author doesn’t believe they are capable of learning anything themselves.

Ryan

(Brief digression: Young Piast is voiced by Namikawa Daisuke. He's Hisoka in HxH, but also, and more relevant to this story, Oikawa in Haikyuu. I think it's interesting how much their stories overlap) I think it's mentioned that Rafal lived in the latter half of the 1400s. It always seemed tragic to me that telescopes weren't invented until the early 1600s (or to use a Dr. Stone-style tech tree example, really the tightest bottleneck was the development of clear glass, since that enabled optics and everything that followed from it. The process for making clear glass was first understood and published at the end of the 1400s). With optics and telescopes, the phases of Venus become trivially easy for anyone even with just average eyesight to see. Sixth-magnitude stars can be tracked at will. The quality of every observation increases, and of course, Galileo and others would go on to see much more than that. The general point: better observation technology makes it much more difficult for badly mistaken models to survive.

Emman Reed

yeah I loved this episode and am greatly enjoying these reactions! Thank you <3

agoodwintv
>>181940924

What if everything I've always believed is a lie? How can I be sure of anything. Actually just from experience, personal history says I will either completely change my mind about a lot of what I believe or significantly revise the ideas on some way 😂

agoodwintv
>>181951839

That's interesting. I wonder what the next technology will be that makes an area of contention completely irrelevant

Kieran

Probably my second favourite episode, my favourite from a philosophical and life lesson perspective. What I love so much about Count Piast is that even though he understands the beauty of heliocentrism by the end, he still can't fully be rid of the deep sadness from having spent his entire life (and the life of his master) on an incorrect theory. He passes away at peace, but there is a profound sadness to it that feels very human. Anyone who dedicated their life to something that ends up seeming to be in vein would be unable to fully appreciate that which supplants it. Inquisitive humans can only really survive because we refuse to ponder on just how wrong we are about everything for too long. As a daily example, whenever my friends ask me about Physics or something political, I have to work on the assumption that my knowledge has some level of truth to them, and that I can convey that truth using words. But in reality, I know that pretty much anything I can say or think will have a large portion of 'wrongness' to it, but acknowledging that at every step would lead to a conversation where no one learns anything as information becomes buried by doubt. And then that's without even considering the nightmare of subjectivity of certain truths. I think there are two ways that truth can be manifested: A physical truth (the physical nature of reality) and a moral truth. A lot of the truths we grapple with in daily life are moral truths, such as politics, philosophy, ethics, relationships, etc. But whereas we can develop objective(ish) measures of physical reality, there is no one ontology for morality. Philosophers have been trying for millenia, and they will try for many more millenia. So you have to accept that there isn't really a purely rational reason for your moral frameworks (for example, why does avoiding another person's death matter at all? Physically, it's just molecules changing forms, there is no inherent value to life or consciousness, and ascribing value in order to make a moral judgement on whether to save someone from dying is inherently subjective). So we will therefore always be wrong in some way, even with perfect knowledge. Then again, that seems to contradict the name 'moral truth', so perhaps I've just proven that moral truth doesn't exist to myself. These are just thoughts I'm putting into words for the first time tonight, so I obviously still have a lot to work on. Can't wait for your future reactions, there's always a lot to think about, especially with Orb.

thegreatquack

The only bad thing about this show is the lighting. Maybe it's just my screen, but sometimes I just see a black screen in these night scenes.

agoodwintv
>>181973076

I actually think (though I could be more wrong than Piast) that there IS an objective value system that gives some sort of reliable basis for morality. Some quick points: 1. Trusting physical reality means taking certain assumptions for granted (not asking "how do you know" too far down the line). Like, "how do you know these physical observations and calculations will ALWAYS hold up just because they always have so far." I think if we afford moral reasoning a similar level of faith then it's not all that different and it's a solid enough foundation on which to build. 2. It's funny, I had a similar conversation with my sister recently where she said something in the same vein as "it's JUST molecules." It struck me at the time that that's a HUGE "just." What does that mean, JUST molecules? Maybe that argument is largely just conditioning. Why is the "just" part an axiom that doesn't need explaining? And is that not in part circular reasoning? (it has no meaning because it is just something with no meaning). That doesn't prove that there IS objective meaning but it means this is not a sufficient refutation of meaning. 3. This is way oversimplified here but, I don't think humans created meaning, no more than humans created pain. Pain (speaking of the physical) seems to carry within it its own value scale (negative, or please don't do that). Which is odd because how could a cold, material, universe have the existential substrate from which to draw something like preference or choice heirarchy? And none of this is something created by the human mind (and is such a thing even conceivably possible?) 4. I think the difficulty we have about morality and a lot of its confusions are that we don't always KNOW how each scenario plays into the larger picture. That's beyond the scope of any one human. But we then take this fact and extrapolate that there is NO objective basis for morality, but those are not the same ideas

Hailan

Neat little detail that the shape Piast drew on the wooden pillar (half circle) happened to be the phase he wished he saw Venus in on that night from long ago, which would’ve been in line with his life’s study in geocentrism.