Sometimes in podcasts the guest ends up talking too much and the interviewer needs to wrestle back control. With Dr. Hicks on the other hand, it's like, nah, go man go. Everything he says is both understandable and important
36:56 and a few minutes after that. Notice the "smuggling" in of Popper's Trial and Error approach. This is a late (!) invention of the enlightenment, if you take the propositional form of ideas serisously. [Peacemeal-Engineering, instead of a holistic perspective!] Furthermore, notice the ambiguous way, in which the english word "reasoning" is used. It can mean, both, to reason AND TALK, or to use those faculties of reason, which are reserved to whst Kant and Schopenhauer called: "Urteilskraft", which is the ability to judge, and which us independent of your ability to talk, although it is, often, highly linked, and intuitively associated with each other, which is wrong, yb the way.
Poppers variant is important, yet note that trial-and-error is highlighted and baked into Enlightenment epistemology, even from its earliest versions in Bacon, Locke, and others.
@@stephenhicks677 It surely is important! And, by the way, independent of my original comment: You're doing great work! And I find it highly relevant that you are tackling those topics! Good to see that someone is talking about those issues.
I'm just here to recommend today's Michael Shellenberger presentation on the University of Austin channel, which ties in with several of my comments on recent CEE vids.
30:49 is called evolution but not by natural selection but by humans desire of a perfect social dynamics where the philosophers labels the idea and intellectuals groups keep working in them, from Plato and Aristotle to 2024 their ideas had become a different specie; evolution. 😂
Stephen Hicks is a true intellectual, but devalues his capabilities by appearing on these lame interviews; I did not see one spec of real intelligence, insight or forethought from the interviewer in taking on this complex and 'charged' topic. There was the standard babble on 'left' and 'right' positions but no real assimilation of his insights on how Kant can be critiqued from both sides of the debate - or how and why the word 'liberal' has become anathema some circles in the US. ...At some late point the show descended into 'secret societies' and AI Bots but it was too late for me to switch off and not be disgusted at the quality of this intellectual discourse
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for posting this detailed interview with Dr. Hicks.
Absolutely educational, endless thanks, Courtenay and Stephen. Learned a lot. It encourages to dive into the history of ideas.
Excellent discussion
Excellent historical summary of philosophical underpinnings of slices of modern politics.
Engaging and insightful conversation. Nicely done!
Generally a pretty good/informative discussion. Classical conservativism cpuld have been dealt with more. Thanks, Courtenay.
Thank you
Sometimes in podcasts the guest ends up talking too much and the interviewer needs to wrestle back control. With Dr. Hicks on the other hand, it's like, nah, go man go. Everything he says is both understandable and important
36:56 and a few minutes after that. Notice the "smuggling" in of Popper's Trial and Error approach. This is a late (!) invention of the enlightenment, if you take the propositional form of ideas serisously. [Peacemeal-Engineering, instead of a holistic perspective!] Furthermore, notice the ambiguous way, in which the english word "reasoning" is used. It can mean, both, to reason AND TALK, or to use those faculties of reason, which are reserved to whst Kant and Schopenhauer called: "Urteilskraft", which is the ability to judge, and which us independent of your ability to talk, although it is, often, highly linked, and intuitively associated with each other, which is wrong, yb the way.
Poppers variant is important, yet note that trial-and-error is highlighted and baked into Enlightenment epistemology, even from its earliest versions in Bacon, Locke, and others.
@@stephenhicks677 It surely is important!
And, by the way, independent of my original comment: You're doing great work! And I find it highly relevant that you are tackling those topics! Good to see that someone is talking about those issues.
@@peterpedersen3988 Thanks, Peter!
I'm much more worried about the violent irrational trend toward Endarkenment.
“I’m a child of the enlightenment.”
As a rational person I have to express my love for the Enlightenment. 😄
I'm just here to recommend today's Michael Shellenberger presentation on the University of Austin channel, which ties in with several of my comments on recent CEE vids.
Hey Courtenay, was Fr. Seraphim Rose an “op” too? Wait, don’t answer that. I wouldn’t want you to lose access to the Dyers.
Dostoevsky was right.
👍
30:49 is called evolution but not by natural selection but by humans desire of a perfect social dynamics where the philosophers labels the idea and intellectuals groups keep working in them, from Plato and Aristotle to 2024 their ideas had become a different specie; evolution. 😂
Again, classical liberalism held that man was basically good, while classical conservativism held that man was fallen.
The constitution was destroyed under the Wilson administration. Lol
The Constitution was destroyed the same day it was written.
Why do so many women "smirk" during serious discussion and debate? Makes me cringe.
Stephen Hicks is a true intellectual, but devalues his capabilities by appearing on these lame interviews; I did not see one spec of real intelligence, insight or forethought from the interviewer in taking on this complex and 'charged' topic. There was the standard babble on 'left' and 'right' positions but no real assimilation of his insights on how Kant can be critiqued from both sides of the debate - or how and why the word 'liberal' has become anathema some circles in the US. ...At some late point the show descended into 'secret societies' and AI Bots but it was too late for me to switch off and not be disgusted at the quality of this intellectual discourse