When I began my work life, the department of the company that handled people was called "Personnel". Personnel was responsible for taking care of employee needs and issues. Around the end of the 80's, Personnel suddenly became "Human Resources". I thought this was strange at the time but I subsequently realized that how the business viewed employees had changed. Employees were no longer people but just another type of depreciable resource. This was change, but it has not resulted in progress.
_If truth does not go far beyond our own understanding, it can be grabbed and manipulated by those in authority_ Theres so much more to this than meets the eye. Great depths of insight lie just beneath the obvious or mundane. He's understood a similar danger as many others have, though its so fundamental that discussing it is difficult.
Timely.and solid analysis at the philosophical level. Given the deeper.level of consideration i find it depressing since it's syatemic and unstoppable. My instincts were already in this direction.(without knowing the why of 9t) - we aee actively seeking an enclave to allow us to live and breathe. I.wonder.what comes once we hit the buffers?
I'd pay more than makes sense to read a detailed and lengthy review by this John Gray about the other John Gray's book "Men Are From Venus, Women Are From Mars".
The grandstanding end of this discussion is embarrassing. People don’t protest the crimes of any random government, but their OWN government’s crimes; something they actually have a say or moral responsibility for. What would possibly be the purpose of protesting another government? The idea makes no sense. Gray lectures us on humility, and then posits some bizarre, universal moral duty of protest to (he thinks) outline the hypocrisy of today’s protests. What nonsense.
it strikes me, contrary to my comment before, that neoliberalism, in condoning "choice", 'believes' that people make the best choices for themselves??? If neoliberalism promotes choice, why can't people choose not to work???
Zizek asks a similar question: can we do away with religion after the death of god? Following Jacques Alain Miller, Zizek believes that what dies on the cross is not JC but God. The question then becomes: after building our moral and ethical systems on monotheism, can we now safely pull up the ladder and abandon it? Gray would say we cannot
I fundamentally disagree with Zizek on this. He has this from Hegel. His main point is that God died so that we could be free to then improve our societies. Its our responsibility now, not Gods. I think this is a flawed idea. The main wisdom of religion, specifically Christianity, is that is places heaven outside of this world. We will never as humans create paradise on earth, which rids us from utopian ideas which have come in many forms the last 100 years, including the one John Gray confronts here. Placing paradise outside of this world and keeping God alive gives us a basis to make decisions in this world, and to try to improve it while staying in touch with some core values. Its the basis of our society, therefore removing it was always unwise.
@@keto0303 Do you believe there is actually a thinking/creative entity called god? Or is it just a concept/metaphor that allows us to argue for moral values?
@@wowjef The most honest question to that is that I have no idea. I used to be a firm believer, then I had a period of hard atheism to the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. Now I find myself coming back to a belief that there certainly are things unexplainable, and for us as humans to think that we can figure it all out with reason and science is delusional. Faith is highly subjective and its not a constant. I think there are universal truths and wisdom in the universe, who set them up, is it a God, I dont know. Christianity does provide a moral framework at least which our predecessors used and guided them.
I look at the societies in the world, having spent a busy career living for several years in quite a few diverse regions. I’m able to make judgements based on direct experience of various systems of political and economic ideologies. I’m afraid that the Anglo American model of liberalism with universal suffrage produces the worst outcomes for citizens. It shouldn’t be surprising, when there is no threshold for mental capacity or societal responsibility within any form of a democracy you can’t expect optimal outcomes. We have what we deserve, mediocracy as opposed to meritocracy.
@@ajs41 I think there are 3 reasons. The first is that that you can’t expect someone with poor understanding of the issues facing the nation to select someone best placed to deal with the real issues. The second is the short election cycle doesn’t allow long term strategic planning. The third is the focus on the individual as opposed to the collective. I’m of the opinion that the collective best interests should always Trump individual best interests. A prime example of this would be Eugenics, a medically designed eugenics programme would be beneficial for the health of the collective society over multiple generations. But, even though there would be a clear benefit for future generations, it is not done as it impacts the individual rights of the genetically sick. So selfish in my opinion, to burden future generations with more individuals for the state to have to manage.
What is an 'optimal outcome'? Who decides this optimal outcome? Is it a science? Does it go by the name utilitarianism? Why should I submit myself to this optimal outcome? Does it go by the name "sympathetic utilitarianism"?
@@ajs41The most amount of good for the most amount of people. Sometimes, but not always, freedoms have to be restricted in order to achieve this outcome. Peoples freedom to believe and to act upon whatever flavour of noble lie they might adhere to, is fine, just as long as it doesn’t compromise the primary objective.
I honestly have never heard Gray sound so confused. Some decent ideas here, but also a lot of horse manure. Religion ushering in tolerance? Laughably, astonishingly false. Consumer choice was always a propagandistic selling point for the free market: the ultimate value was always the unleashing & deification of man as producer; choice was the hoi poloi’s reward for letting great men do their thing (and, especially, keep their rewards). I think he’s right about the inherent amorality of the market, but that’s not only a problem of choice, but of pluralism, which he’s apparently favors. What? Maybe I’m jumping the gun here because I’m only about a third through, but this seems to already be completely off the rails.
Liberalism was founded on Christianity. Thats the point. When Christianity loses its influence, liberalism becomes void and devolves into what its become.
All of Gray's initial list of what is dead about liberalism are highly debatable. Liberalism was never about "libertarianism" in the current definition of that word. It was about "liberty", or "freedom" in a broad sense. Liberalism is at the very heart of freedom of speech enshrined in law. The supposed "woke" repression of points of view is largely a myth. I would like to see a list of the items being repressed. Scientific expertise acquired by government doesn't displace moral and political judgement. That's just a silly juxtaposition of paradigms or criteria seemingly at odds with each other but which are in fact complementary. We all must stop at red lights except ambulances or fire engines. Contrary to conventional wisdom, modern liberal society is really about intricate prohibitions that increase personal freedom. Think about food safety, or freedom from slander. The first is all based on technocratic scientific expertise, the second about limiting the power of the more powerful against those with less power. As someone said, modern government is a big insurance company with an army.
philosophical/political theory seems to ignore activities of daily living, including cleaning, tidying, shopping and cooking, or that without manual workers, our system wouldn't work? yet, i suggest the latter 'jobs' conflict with more academic 'work', leaving those who do them, disenfranchised? more to the point, 'liberalism' has taken me, 61, all this time to try to figure out, and, I'm still not sure I have 'solved' it, definitely being poor. I have children and i've lost 3 teeth! Due to neoliberalism's 'mystique', i suggest we have a longer time to familiarise ourselves with it in order to prosper from it. indeed, it would seem that this ability can reasonably be stated to be a human right, given the centrality of the theory to our lives now? Thus, obtaining this above-delineated 'faculty' is another argument to support longevity research, no???
He’s an atheist. “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,“ Romans 1:21-22 ESV
By bringing the Uygur's into this conversation, condemns him in my opinion. It reminds me that he supported Mrs Thatcher. If this man was a dispassionate intellectual, won't he know that Uygur's genocide was a means to destabilise China. Especially now that China is opened, he could at least try to discover the truth before opening his mouth.
This is kind of embarrassing, to be honest. He’s giving off a very old person being bigoted but still needing social approval energy here. If people don’t like your values, they don’t like your values, deal with it. How is government-sanctioned bigotry any more tolerant?
@FlorinG Tolerant in the old fashioned sense, in that you aren't being burned at the stake or imprisoned. So yes, liberals, in so far that they're pink haired college students, are pretty damn tolerant. Most people are walking away with their knees intact and free from state persecution.
Queen Elizabeth the First invented Tolerance. It was a tax on Catholics, paid as the financial price for their continued presence in Protestant (Anglican) Britain.
What a disappointment at the end with the comments on wokeism. I took careful notes and was very impressed during the lecture, but on woke, Mr. Gray does not define it and hardly even describes it. Basically, as far as I can tell, all he does is accuse its proponents of insincerity. And as for why woke advocates focus on certain oppressed groups and not on the Uighurs, It’s clear that they don’t know much about them, so focus on the oppressed minorities they do, that is, those in their own countries. This starts with African-Americans because of the George Floyd murder.
Clearly not very good notes. He spends considerable time discussing "hyper-liberalism" as his preferred term as consisting of a theology of moralistic social science as imagined by Auguste Comte, the ill of which is not at all attempting to criticize social injustices but rather in intellectual intolerance.
The original autopsy report by Hennepin county medical examiner dr. Andrew Baker the day after floyd died found there was "no physical evidence suggesting that mr. Floyd died of asphyixiation. The toxicology test showed that Floyd,46 had a "fatal level of fentanyl in his blood, along with methamphetamine."
He definea it perfectly abd several times. Woke = hyper liberalism. The idea that man can be whatever he wanta to be at any point without restraint. It is the loss of balance% equilibrium essential to all systems.
what on earth are you talking about? Have you listened to him? A distinguished political philosopher, by all means disagree with his thesis but don't just be puerile
When I began my work life, the department of the company that handled people was called "Personnel". Personnel was responsible for taking care of employee needs and issues. Around the end of the 80's, Personnel suddenly became "Human Resources". I thought this was strange at the time but I subsequently realized that how the business viewed employees had changed. Employees were no longer people but just another type of depreciable resource. This was change, but it has not resulted in progress.
Capital is dead labour that requires living labour to reanimate it. The allocation of labour is the job of human remains.
Human resources exists mainly to advance the interests of management, not lower-level employees.
It hasn't resulted in progress?
I read his books over and over again.
_If truth does not go far beyond our own understanding, it can be grabbed and manipulated by those in authority_
Theres so much more to this than meets the eye. Great depths of insight lie just beneath the obvious or mundane. He's understood a similar danger as many others have, though its so fundamental that discussing it is difficult.
Stunning. Thank you.
A delightful conversation! Thank you.
Timely.and solid analysis at the philosophical level. Given the deeper.level of consideration i find it depressing since it's syatemic and unstoppable. My instincts were already in this direction.(without knowing the why of 9t) - we aee actively seeking an enclave to allow us to live and breathe. I.wonder.what comes once we hit the buffers?
Thé anarchic energy of the free market ended Britain’s institutions. And technocracy.
I'd pay more than makes sense to read a detailed and lengthy review by this John Gray about the other John Gray's book "Men Are From Venus, Women Are From Mars".
The grandstanding end of this discussion is embarrassing. People don’t protest the crimes of any random government, but their OWN government’s crimes; something they actually have a say or moral responsibility for. What would possibly be the purpose of protesting another government? The idea makes no sense. Gray lectures us on humility, and then posits some bizarre, universal moral duty of protest to (he thinks) outline the hypocrisy of today’s protests. What nonsense.
it strikes me, contrary to my comment before, that neoliberalism, in condoning "choice", 'believes' that people make the best choices for themselves???
If neoliberalism promotes choice, why can't people choose not to work???
Zizek asks a similar question: can we do away with religion after the death of god? Following Jacques Alain Miller, Zizek believes that what dies on the cross is not JC but God. The question then becomes: after building our moral and ethical systems on monotheism, can we now safely pull up the ladder and abandon it? Gray would say we cannot
I fundamentally disagree with Zizek on this. He has this from Hegel. His main point is that God died so that we could be free to then improve our societies. Its our responsibility now, not Gods. I think this is a flawed idea. The main wisdom of religion, specifically Christianity, is that is places heaven outside of this world. We will never as humans create paradise on earth, which rids us from utopian ideas which have come in many forms the last 100 years, including the one John Gray confronts here. Placing paradise outside of this world and keeping God alive gives us a basis to make decisions in this world, and to try to improve it while staying in touch with some core values. Its the basis of our society, therefore removing it was always unwise.
@@keto0303 Do you believe there is actually a thinking/creative entity called god? Or is it just a concept/metaphor that allows us to argue for moral values?
@@wowjef The most honest question to that is that I have no idea. I used to be a firm believer, then I had a period of hard atheism to the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. Now I find myself coming back to a belief that there certainly are things unexplainable, and for us as humans to think that we can figure it all out with reason and science is delusional. Faith is highly subjective and its not a constant. I think there are universal truths and wisdom in the universe, who set them up, is it a God, I dont know. Christianity does provide a moral framework at least which our predecessors used and guided them.
I look at the societies in the world, having spent a busy career living for several years in quite a few diverse regions. I’m able to make judgements based on direct experience of various systems of political and economic ideologies. I’m afraid that the Anglo American model of liberalism with universal suffrage produces the worst outcomes for citizens. It shouldn’t be surprising, when there is no threshold for mental capacity or societal responsibility within any form of a democracy you can’t expect optimal outcomes. We have what we deserve, mediocracy as opposed to meritocracy.
Why does it produce the worst outcomes?
@@ajs41 I think there are 3 reasons.
The first is that that you can’t expect someone with poor understanding of the issues facing the nation to select someone best placed to deal with the real issues.
The second is the short election cycle doesn’t allow long term strategic planning.
The third is the focus on the individual as opposed to the collective. I’m of the opinion that the collective best interests should always Trump individual best interests. A prime example of this would be Eugenics, a medically designed eugenics programme would be beneficial for the health of the collective society over multiple generations. But, even though there would be a clear benefit for future generations, it is not done as it impacts the individual rights of the genetically sick. So selfish in my opinion, to burden future generations with more individuals for the state to have to manage.
What is an 'optimal outcome'? Who decides this optimal outcome? Is it a science? Does it go by the name utilitarianism? Why should I submit myself to this optimal outcome?
Does it go by the name "sympathetic utilitarianism"?
@@ajs41The most amount of good for the most amount of people. Sometimes, but not always, freedoms have to be restricted in order to achieve this outcome. Peoples freedom to believe and to act upon whatever flavour of noble lie they might adhere to, is fine, just as long as it doesn’t compromise the primary objective.
I honestly have never heard Gray sound so confused. Some decent ideas here, but also a lot of horse manure. Religion ushering in tolerance? Laughably, astonishingly false. Consumer choice was always a propagandistic selling point for the free market: the ultimate value was always the unleashing & deification of man as producer; choice was the hoi poloi’s reward for letting great men do their thing (and, especially, keep their rewards). I think he’s right about the inherent amorality of the market, but that’s not only a problem of choice, but of pluralism, which he’s apparently favors. What? Maybe I’m jumping the gun here because I’m only about a third through, but this seems to already be completely off the rails.
Liberalism was founded on Christianity. Thats the point. When Christianity loses its influence, liberalism becomes void and devolves into what its become.
All of Gray's initial list of what is dead about liberalism are highly debatable.
Liberalism was never about "libertarianism" in the current definition of that word. It was about "liberty", or "freedom" in a broad sense.
Liberalism is at the very heart of freedom of speech enshrined in law. The supposed "woke" repression of points of view is largely a myth. I would like to see a list of the items being repressed.
Scientific expertise acquired by government doesn't displace moral and political judgement. That's just a silly juxtaposition of paradigms or criteria seemingly at odds with each other but which are in fact complementary. We all must stop at red lights except ambulances or fire engines.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, modern liberal society is really about intricate prohibitions that increase personal freedom. Think about food safety, or freedom from slander. The first is all based on technocratic scientific expertise, the second about limiting the power of the more powerful against those with less power.
As someone said, modern government is a big insurance company with an army.
Linear history and progress is a myth. The heart of man needs redemeption. Calvary was the central act of history
philosophical/political theory seems to ignore activities of daily living, including cleaning, tidying, shopping and cooking, or that without manual workers, our system wouldn't work? yet, i suggest the latter 'jobs' conflict with more academic 'work', leaving those who do them, disenfranchised? more to the point, 'liberalism' has taken me, 61, all this time to try to figure out, and, I'm still not sure I have 'solved' it, definitely being poor. I have children and i've lost 3 teeth! Due to neoliberalism's 'mystique', i suggest we have a longer time to familiarise ourselves with it in order to prosper from it. indeed, it would seem that this ability can reasonably be stated to be a human right, given the centrality of the theory to our lives now? Thus, obtaining this above-delineated 'faculty' is another argument to support longevity research, no???
Ah, 19 mins ish. The Inquisition. The Ayatollah. Universal values without argument.
He’s an atheist. “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,“
Romans 1:21-22 ESV
By bringing the Uygur's into this conversation, condemns him in my opinion. It reminds me that he supported Mrs Thatcher. If this man was a dispassionate intellectual, won't he know that Uygur's genocide was a means to destabilise China. Especially now that China is opened, he could at least try to discover the truth before opening his mouth.
This is kind of embarrassing, to be honest.
He’s giving off a very old person being bigoted but still needing social approval energy here.
If people don’t like your values, they don’t like your values, deal with it. How is government-sanctioned bigotry any more tolerant?
"It was monotheism that gave us liberal tolerance"... That's a weird assumption
If you keep on listening then he explains the historical reasons for that development of practises of tolerance
Liberalism is tolerant?! 😳 Just try and disagree or even oppose liberal ideas, then you’ll see how tolerant they really are.
@@HolyRainbowism he means liberalism in the classical, 'European' sense, liberalism in US politics is something else, although related
@FlorinG Tolerant in the old fashioned sense, in that you aren't being burned at the stake or imprisoned. So yes, liberals, in so far that they're pink haired college students, are pretty damn tolerant. Most people are walking away with their knees intact and free from state persecution.
Queen Elizabeth the First invented Tolerance. It was a tax on Catholics, paid as the financial price for their continued presence in Protestant (Anglican) Britain.
“Elicited praise from the likes of George Soros”….o’ dear!
What a disappointment at the end with the comments on wokeism. I took careful notes and was very impressed during the lecture, but on woke, Mr. Gray does not define it and hardly even describes it. Basically, as far as I can tell, all he does is accuse its proponents of insincerity. And as for why woke advocates focus on certain oppressed groups and not on the Uighurs, It’s clear that they don’t know much about them, so focus on the oppressed minorities they do, that is, those in their own countries. This starts with African-Americans because of the George Floyd murder.
Clearly not very good notes. He spends considerable time discussing "hyper-liberalism" as his preferred term as consisting of a theology of moralistic social science as imagined by Auguste Comte, the ill of which is not at all attempting to criticize social injustices but rather in intellectual intolerance.
The original autopsy report by Hennepin county medical examiner dr. Andrew Baker the day after floyd died found there was "no physical evidence suggesting that mr. Floyd died of asphyixiation. The toxicology test showed that Floyd,46 had a "fatal level of fentanyl in his blood, along with methamphetamine."
Okay
He definea it perfectly abd several times. Woke = hyper liberalism. The idea that man can be whatever he wanta to be at any point without restraint. It is the loss of balance% equilibrium essential to all systems.
U
His argument for tenure is weak, to put it mildly
He is so bored he has to hold himself up with his arms. Somebody give this guy a vitamin.
what on earth are you talking about? Have you listened to him? A distinguished political philosopher, by all means disagree with his thesis but don't just be puerile
He's in his late 70s! (He stumbled over his text a few times.) "hold himself up with his arms" - Give the guy a break.
We already reget giving you a podium. But live with regret, we all do.