Western Academia and Individualism | Interview with Prof Stephen Hicks
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 чер 2024
- Stelios interviews renowned Professor Stephen Hicks about the state of western academia, the intellectual and administrative causes of it, the appeal of Russian philosopher Dugin to western audiences, and post-liberal misunderstandings of liberalism and individualism.
Find more from Stephen Hicks here: x.com/SRCHicks
Exclusive video/written content for as little as £5 a month: www.lotuseaters.com/register
Subscribe to our other channel:
/ @lotuseatersdotcom
Follow us:
Parler - parler.com/profile/lotuseater...
Twitter - lotuseaters_com
Gab - gab.com/lotuseaters_com
Minds - www.minds.com/lotuseaters_com/
Facebook - lotuseatersd...
VK - lotuseaters_com
Sound Cloud - soundcloud.com/lotuseaters_com
BitChute - www.bitchute.com/channel/lotu...
Instagram - lotuseaters...
Rumble - rumble.com/c/c-340087
Ruqqus - ruqqus.com/+lotuseaters_com
Reddit - www.reddit.com/r/Lotuseaters_...
Spotify - open.spotify.com/show/3bXokLw...
DLive - dlive.tv/lotuseaters_com
Twitch - www.twitch.tv/lotuseaters_com
Google Podcasts - podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
Apple Podcast - podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
Steven Hicks was part of what cured my communism phase as a teen. Great guy.
Prof Hicks' insights into the ideological/philosophical conflict between British liberalism and Prussian statism leading to the First World War was mindblowing to me. A great guy.
I used to believe in this idea that our current situation is caused by post world war 2 illiberal frankfurt school/postmodernist agitators a great deal but since then I've become more and more convinced by the neoreactionary position that this is a natural progression of liberalism. Most recently hearing political scientist Eric Kaufmann explain how it's the general left-liberal psychological tendency to side with and support minorities as the highest priority that is the main cause of our current situation and agitators had a smaller effect taking advantage of this instinct to make things happen a little faster has convinced me entirely.
Eric Kaufman and neoreactionaries/dissident right people are more correct and liberals like Stephen Hicks and Jordan Peterson are less correct.
42:20
My critique of the classical liberal is literally that the liberal never defines what *is* "free" nor "equal". Largely this is just an exercise in trying to set up a distinction without difference argument where the classical liberal simply asserts that they are different, yet this difference largely emerges from personal indignation and disgust reaction towards proposed freedoms, suggested by the more comprehensive/modern liberal.
Absolutely fantastic conversation, Hick's book was foundational to my understanding of the current political climate.
Great interview, Stelios
not related to the video but seeing Code Geass pfp, are you watching Rose of the recapture and is it good so far?
@@voxsvoxs4261 Oh man, thank you for letting me know about Recapture, completely missed it, I'll check it out and get back to you
It is true that liberalism allows for more variance and freedom in modes of an individuals thinking. That it allows for more individuation and individuality. But that is actually a bad thing. As the tendency reveals, people are self-evidently individuals, but they don't exist in a circumstance removed from all others. The live physical and psychological in environments with other people, which they are brought up in and inculcated from.
This means there is greater variance within the environments as well.
This leads to increased chances that an individuals psychological makeup is distinct from the psychological makeup of the surrounding culture. They don't know what codes, what customs, what expectations to have day-by-day, block-by-block, room-to-room, step-to-step.
This diversity of cultural expectation from liberal-individualism could more honestly be described as a psychological abuse. This, combined with liberalisms negligence of historic communities, is it a wonder people are having a crisis of moral fortitude, a crisis of meaning, and why the materially most advanced society's are having trouble keeping their people from self-ending? Or finding a desire to bring forward future generations?
These are not bugs of liberalism. These are features.
Thanks for these talks to LE and Stelios. Individualism (along with romantic love) has long been a great theme in Western literature, often equated with being to true to self and freedom. I can see its relevance to mental health and how this becomes the current "trans" argument. However, we will not survive in a "unipolar" world if we do not see ourselves in group terms as a distinct class and distinct people with a common interest and traits that sometimes are way more important than the individual.
That's only the veneer of the argument, the theatrics for the public at large, obfuscated for acceptability. For those effected, the psychology hinges entirely on arresting and holding hosted meaning, social place, and that found self is a privilege given by the groups acceptance. Therefore by extension at constant threat of exile, excommunication, and having that self stripped away.
To put it another way, it's a subversion leveraging a romantization of individualism and fundamental misunderstanding of groups (particular in the manner you just stated, simplistic twisted to asserted complexity, disregarding proper scope and contexts). The former being stretch as the only qualifying consideration publicly for deciding acceptance at large, the later constructing false diaspora and conflated demographics to be afforded as the only acceptable "selves" to which must be kept in accordance with the diktat of a "representative" authority.
Both being subverted out of scope and their rightful contexts for nefarious ends. It is this, not one or the other or their proper conceptualizations. Even arguably, the weight of either should hypothetically both be reasonable iff they remain scoped and understood rather than misconstrued. A mix of malice with, and the natural entropy from, logical fallacy. (For various reasons and degrees of proclivity for each.)
Steven is correct about the Dean culture of academe. It's one of the major culprits in the current insanities.
47:14
Democracy is the popular consent of government action. If people are actively not engaging/prevented from engaging with political engagement, by definition this cannot be just nor could it be described as "liberal" but majoritarianism.
On the reverse, if the people are willfully not engaging with the democratic process of governance this means the process cannot be "liberal" as their will is being imposed upon as outlined in the initial premise, thus those not willing to engage with the political governance must be enforced to engage with political governance.
In every outcome, it is both true and not-true liberalism. Therefore, "liberalism" doesn't mean/could mean anything.
This is also the philosophy that tries to treat itself as rationalistic. Yet it is irrational under its own steelman.
The nefarious, the ill-intentioned, the incompetent, members of society should actively be prohibited from engaging with the system and have their influenced lited as significantly as possible, yet the liberal paradigm amplifies their voice as much as possible.
The ultimate conclusion of liberalism is Kakistocracy, where the nefarious and incompetent are trended for leadership. This occurs because they are less likely to recognize/more likely to actively reject, the norms and guidelines of a morally upstanding and fair society. This freedom puts the evil and incompetent in a technical competitive advantage as they do not have the same moral encumbrances as the more upstanding and forthright encumbrance.
This bitter, spiteful, tribal, irrational, debauched, corrupt, and incompetent social order we are living under are no accidents. Yet the only thing we can do is "vote harder" because that is the only response the liberal accepts.
Great guest!
Ethnicity and nationalism trumps individualism.
AY UP LOTUS EATERS
Rationality, equality, and natural rights were always very tenuous concepts.
Rationality is an artificial exercise that takes place hypothetically in the course of the absolutely absurd condition of human understanding. The absolute understandable truth is that there is no absolute understandable truth- a statement both correct and absurd. Absurdity is contra-definitional to rationality at the same time that it is absolutely necessary and correct at its very core. Admission of absurdity is generally disqualifying under rationality. Except when the point is the absolute universal absurdity of the entire endeavor. Absurdity is not something that happens within rationality, rationality is something that happens within absurdity. Thus, rationality is a curious notion.
Equality is also a strange assertion. No definition can possibly withstand scrutiny upon application unless one means something extremely removed from the word itself. That is a kind of procedural equality born out of a particular concern over a kind of harm avoidance. That there is no trustworthy or agreed upon criteria or adjudicator to assign social or political hierarchy, and therefore all must be presumed equal not out of actual equality, but as a way to avoid conflict over the recognition and incorporation of the truth of inequality. Again, very curious.
And natural rights... I mean, that is indistinguishable from bare assertion. I suppose that "because I said so" doesn't have the gravitas of something ordained by heaven. So instead, liberalism creates this novel political blasphemy.
I think that the open-mindedness and perpetual deliberation built into the core of the liberal impulse is exactly correct as a philosophy for science. But it is extremely destructive to a normal person's sense of self, community, purpose and general peace of mind. We are social creatures of habit by nature, not philosopher hermits. Those that are drawn to the abyss and cannot help but to look may do so. But to build an entire political philosophy upon such absurdities is definitely going to be disastrous for the common mind sooner or later. All modern political philosophy is grounded in one kind of revolutionary propaganda or another, and liberalism, by any definition, is no exception. When you start with deliberate deception, things usually don't end well.
Equal rights are gay.
Quite frankly this is a justification of liberalism that only liberals can accept, liberalism supports liberal ideals is just tautology not justification.
If this was to be any succesful defense of liberalism, it must follow the obvious logic "X is a grand good, liberalism pursues X, therefore liberalism is good" however, I haven't seen anywhere from this video that sort of logic. I don't get why liberals believe appealing to liberalism is going to work, as though indoctrination alone is sufficient.
If he considers Jordan Peterson an ally he’s not worth listening to he just really wants to go back to the 90’s at the end of the day
I wouldn't say it's wise to follow Hicks, as the Randian individualism thing is done to death historically and we all see the flaws in it. I do find him interesting to listen to though.