So what did we learn today? Hitler, who founded an anti-modernity movement actually really liked modernity. Rationality and skepticism mean that you're intolerant of irrational views, which is bad apparently. The scientific revolution wasn't a thing because some king founded a college in 1500. And the US Constitution, which is so liberal it almost verbatim quotes Locke and Rousseau, actually had nothing to do with the enlightenment. I love learning!
Hitler was not an enemy of modernity because fascism is based on philosophical vitalism, the ubermench theory, sorelism and other ideas that oppose liberalism, rationalism and individualism, but are not pre modern. Also scientific racism has its roots on modernity and last but not least fascism is pro industrial and technological.
Adam Smith was part of the Enlightenment, he was the person who developed laissez-faire capitalism. This is such a basic fact and it's so easy to prove, it's incredible that you would suggest otherwise. Edit: ok he didn't develop laissez-faire capitalism, he laid the foundations of capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism was developed by other people.
He didn't actually want laissez Faire Capitalism, although he did identify it. He advised against the Mercantilism of the day, and Marx based his works on Adam Smith. But yeah he was an enlightenment
""Millions died as Napoleon’s armies sought to rebuild every government in Europe in light of the one correct political theory he believed was permitted by Enlightenment philosophy." You realize that associating Emmanuel Kant's views on reason with someone who thinks their reasoning is right is in no way an argument, right?
@Luís Filipe Andrade - Then that should be the argument attempted to be made here, not this. The above example is the equivalent of saying "John Brown killed dozens of individuals in his pursuit of abolition, therefore abolition must be bad right???"
@Luís Filipe Andrade - You did not understand my reply. The analogy was intentionally meant to not make sense to bring to light that a similar association like was done with Napoleon also does not make sense. The video used one person's justifications to say that the belief itself was bad. Ergo applying that same logic to someone like John Brown makes his belief (ie abolition) bad. It is meant to not make sense to bring to light why the argument in the video also does not make sense
@@Sylvertaco my point is your quatation is suitable for those cancel culture maniac who refuse to debate and defending self belief as truth. Not to equate you with them.
@Luís Filipe Andrade They were better at the time, now liberals have come with better ideas, aka progress, but conservatives are like "BuT I doN't wAnT tO pAy fOr otHer PeOple'S hEaLthCare, I woUlD RatHeR paY My oWn InsUrANcE (which works the same way, but with corporations price gouging you) aNd waTcH PeOpLe dIe On THe sTrEEt".
@Luís Filipe Andrade Well, I guess you would love working 14 hours a day to give crops to your masters, who will give you just enough to not starve through the day and live in giant castles and mansions, declaring themselves above everyone else, and die if you refuse to... Wait, this starts to sound a lot like our current situation. Interesting, right?
@Luís Filipe Andrade Actually, some founders of capitalism were just the old elites trying to keep themselves above everyone else, and it has worked. In the old days of America, there were corporate cities that were controlled by one corporation, which would provide housing, food, transport, and some other necessities in exchange of 12+ hours of labour a day and selling your whole life to them. The capitalists were your new kings, and it was either that or dying out on the streets, and little has changed from then to now.
I love how one of his only pieces of evidence that Enlightenment ideas lead to disaster is basically saying “You like enlightenment thought? So did Hitler.”
It's the exact kind of argument that he would be rejecting if we used it to describe religious ideas. Hey you can't judge all religious people because some of them killed millions and derailed entire civilizations!
That would be biased and blind hatred, if you don't agree with a person on one thing so you must disagree or dislike every thing he does. Also pragerU do not formulate the whole topic with historical examples. The people invited to speak arrange their thoughts and views.
@GG Allin Compared to the toadies funded by politicians whose solutions always require the politicians to declare themselves dictators and control how everyone lives their lives. www.democraticunderground.com/10022624231 www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM 61,911,000 Murdered: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 35,236,000 Murdered: People's Republic of China 20,946,000 Murdered: National Socialist Germany 10,214,000 Murdered: The Nationalist Regime 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military 2,035,000 Murdered: Communist Party of Kampuchea in Cambodia 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges 1,670,000 Murdered: Vietnam 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani State 1,072,000 Murdered: socialist Yugoslav 1,663,000 Murdered? North Korea 1,417,000 Murdered? Mexico 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia
Yeah, Kant was a critique of Hume, not the other way around. It's kind of funny that PragerU supports Hume, the agnostic who argues that nothing can be learnt through logic, and historical knowledge is uncertain (things which occurred in the past will not necessarily occur in the future), who set out to destroy the Christian view of man; rather than Kant, who believed that empirical knowledge was uncertain, but also argues that there are certain categories of knowledge which are completely logical. Ironically, Kant himself said he was writing in response to dogmatic rationalism, to which Hume woke him up; Kant himself was not dogmatic.
I don't think John Locke did anything better too. I mean many frenchmen supported him like Voltaire and this abstract state of nature, of going beyond current and into an imaginary state, that latter idea certainly influenced rousseau .(not hobbes) The problem really is that we replaced the prejudices of religion with the dogmatism of secular ideas, and this would show disasters like a cancer growing inside Europe.
@@ezefinkielman4672 but you think social justice starts with the conclusion? Nope! I'm the past there was some scientists that believed some rąces to be infęrior but it had been completely disproven in the future by many studies
Anyone who does anything in the name of scientific pursuit is being influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment era, so all scientific studies, good or bad, have to be influenced by the Enlightenment ideas, no?
Yep, some of PragerU videos I like, but this is a hack job to promote traditional conservative values. I don’t dislike a lot of these values, but to dismiss the enlightenment and it’s thinkers like this is intellectually dishonesty.
Dilly Tante they’re defending the French monarchy and attacking the French Revolution which rise up against that oppressive system. If you can come up with another way to interpret his literal words, you go ahead I guess.
@@Lisey_Ann you do realize that freedom of ideology and common sense is a part of the enlightenment and leftist thought. Also PragerU is like THE DEFINITION OF ANTI-Enlightenment.
Not true. They are not saying that logic, reason and science are bad. Actually Christianity and tradition has played a big role in the scientific revolution and western philosophy
@@jonjonboi3701 The reason why Europe got so far ahead technologically is because they had to look for resources. they had to explore and thus encounter new idea's. They then used these idea's with their own to make better ones. Western philosophy has it's roots in Greek scholar's. These idea's were spread by the conquest of Alexander the great. This caused a mixing of idea's from the west and east. Then Indian scholars collected their thought together with the Greek ones and had a scientific golden age. These were then absorbed by the Islamic caliphate that rose in the 800 and collected all knowledge from east and west again. Thus causing another golden age using many different idea's instead of just their own traditions. This then bleed back into Europe via both the crusades and the Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal). Slowly boiling in Sothern Europe until the renaissance kicked into full gear in Italy. City's like Venice that traded with the Muslims also collected books from the afore mentioned golden ages. These were then again combined with their own knowledge and the slow bleed of knowledge from Spain. The exploration of Vasco da Gama and others again brought knowledge from all over the world and then caused the scientific revolution and following that the enlightenment. This golden age hasn't stopped because now scientist from all over the world work together all the time to combine their knowledge.
PragerU: Critical thinking is bad. The movement that pushed critical thinking was awful. Don't think. Don't analyze why things are bad. Just let rich conservatives think for you.
@@unhomesenzill4366 These left-wing critics don't seem to comprehend that the video itself is merely an academic excoriation of Enlightenment "Rationalistic Metaphysics" and thereby the endemic processes of inductive a priori pedagology generally embedded in the institutions of the time. They see this video and automatically assume that this is a general condemnation of enlightenment science and classical liberalism. This is commensurate I suppose, with the typical "Evil, elitist Conservative" inferiority complex.
@@james6309 In this video, they attack Kant for saying that there is only one answer to questions, despite the fact that they have argued the same in the past. Also noteworthy, in this video they attack Napoleon for being a terrible liberal conqueror, and then *literally the next week* they make a video about how cool and important a guy Napoleon is. It's almost as if PragerU doesn't actually care about truth, but instead care about their political agenda.
@@firetarrasque4667 About answers, they're right don't exist only one correct. For example, this video you mentioned, the question is: are Napoleon cool? One guy thinks he is, another thinks he's not, they put their opinions and you as a spectator chose in what to believe. More than one answer. But this doesn't change the only one truth, that Napoleon caused wars I know it's weird to see people who disagree in a small thing on the same side, being on the left (that blindly follows everything the MSM tells to follow without any divergence) But this is democracy and real media showing both sides
@@james6309 But PragerU doesn't present themselves as a bunch of people gathered together to debate ideas, they're a political think tank, which is why it sticks out so much to have them say blatantly contradictory things like that. I might add, they don't normally tell both sides to a story. Take their video on Margaret Thatcher. If that was all you knew about her, you'd probably think she was a good leader. You wouldn't know about her support of Pinochet, or the fact that Northern Britain is *still* recovering from her time in power, or how she refused to seat members of Parliament because they held views she didn't like, or how she funded illegal death squads in Northern Ireland. None of those are spin, those are all things she objectively did, but they're never mentioned. Side note, I thought PragerU liked nationalism. They made a video called "Why you should be a nationalist". Not sure why they're fine with the brutal actions Thatcher took to crush it in the Irish.
@@firetarrasque4667 You have people who disagree with each other in the right, you don't have this in the left, for example, Le Pen is basically a leftist but as she disagrees with the left immigration policies, she's a nazi, fascists, homophobic, racist, etc, etc You forgot to mention give Hong Kong back to China, she had bad policies as every politician have, but personally, I don't think they need to show that, it's all over the media, I heard this who you say about her more times than I heard my name. But topics not very common, like this one, you heard both sides on this video
Well, you can both be great and havie killed millions. That's why the "great" in Alexander the great, who was no different from Napoleon. Better to be great only, not a killer, though.
Another uncharitable strawman from unintelligent leftists that think of a person as monolithical. You forgot to add a second part that puts it in proper context: -NAPOLEON WAS GREAT because (explains reasons) -NAPOLEON KILLED MILLIONS because (explains reasons) Hope I enlightened you
PragerU does spread a lot of credible information for the most part. If you don’t PragerU seriously then I truly feel sorry for you. You can be just like the rest of the delusional leftists out there
The enlightenment was hardly unified in it's thinking. Some were rationalists (Descartes for example) and some were empiricists (Locke). Hume also whom you mentioned as a more conservative reaction to the enlightenment is generally considered part of it, and he was probably actually the most radical empiricist of all. Kant also was not completely focused on pure reason, he was more of a synthesis between the pure rationalism of people like Descartes and the pure empiricism of Hume. Hell his most famous work is "Critique of Pure Reason" were he critiques... Pure reason. And in the political sphere it wasn't unified. Montesquieu, while not inventing the idea of checks and balances, popularized it in intellectual spheres. Voltaire and many philosophes actually wanted despots to rule them, while others just wanted liberal democracy. Rousseau's more radical philosophy has been used to justify all sorts of political ideology from the far left to far right as well as just normal liberalism with his idea of the "general will." Economically, people like John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith advocated free marmet capitalism, aka classical liberalism. This was not conservative at the time. This was coming with the rise of capitalism over feudalism and mercantilism. Capitalism in it's time was a newer much more liberal and free system than the ones which had existed not long before. As you mention Marx, he was a couple steps AWAY from the Enlightenment. He was a post-Hegelian philosopher, who was himself post-Kantian. So while yes, he was in ways influenced by the Enlightenment, almost every philosopher in his time in Europe was a product of the Enlightenment. He rejected enlightenment economics favoring a stateless, classless society, which has not really ever happened on any large scale. But in the end, the Enlightened thinkers did popularize many of the liberal ideas we hold dear today and which were still foundational in America. Many of the founding fathers were deists and most were influenced by enlightenment ideas like the social contract. They were almost certainly familiar with The Spirit of the Laws, and many had probably read it. Paine's philosophy was based on enlightenment thinking and he was responsible for convincing many to join the revolutionary cause. The Constitution is largely based on enlightenment liberalism, even if it's not the only influence on it.
This guy is hilarious. Centuries of philosophical debate brushed aside, Kant is just wrong. Rousseau, just wrong. Marx, just wrong. The guys with the english names, yes they're right.
Yes, and Hume was far more radically anti-traditionalist than Kant, who basically formed his entire philosophy around countering Hume. This guy is a hack fraud
Yep, and both formed conservative ideals. The idea that the Enlightenment is purely left or right is incorrect. The Enlightenment was about the creation of new ideas and humans are two sided creatures, there are so many sides to the Enlightenment it is crazy. There are literally historians who focus purely on this area because it was so important and so vast. Plus these new ideas led to the Revolutions of many states against their “mother country”. The American Revolution wouldn’t have happened without the Enlightenment.
GG Allin The pendulum swings between liberalism and conservatism, you should know this. Smith came up with economic liberalism which is later identified to conservatism and thus brought forth a type of liberalism known as socialism. The criticisms he brought up were embraced by Marx because he saw those as proof as to how capitalism simply shouldn’t be embraced.
"The abstract Enlightenment philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau is a good example. It quickly pulled down the French state, leading to the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, and the Napoleonic Wars." So you don't actually explain why the philosopher is a good example, or how his views are related to Emmanuel Kant?
@@clairestark9024 basically. The more shot I watch from then the more Lies I see. I remember the American Revolution video where they tried to argue that the French revolution was less important because of the executions when in reality the French Revolution introduced equal rights to men and women of all races when the constitution let slavery exist. And remember no taxation without representation? After the revolution, they slapped a 30% whiskey tax on the poor people who couldnt vote. Only poor people really drank whiskey while tea was drunken by the upper classes. And when a revolution rose up due to said tax, they were quashed and the rich wagged their fingers and said that they shouldn't revolt.
@@Frame_Late something about praguru weirds me out. I cant tell if they're totally disingenuous or ferociously stupid. I mean when I follow either it leads to the other.
"They also pass over the fact that the father of communism, Karl Marx, saw himself as promoting universal reason as well." Again, someone claiming to promote a true 'universal reason' does not mean the pursuit of universal reason is wrong. it means like all things that people need to approach claims with critical thinking.
@@tepesobrejac4360 - How specific individuals apply concepts does not make the concepts themselves dangerous. If that was the case, most religions and sciences would fall under this case due to individuals using them to commit atrocities.
@@Sylvertaco Except religious atrocities might as well be a slap on the ass compared to Marxist atrocities. I'll take ten different crusades over one failed Communist state any day. Because nine times out of ten, the Crusaders either hug the walls of their fortresses or fail at attacking other countries.
@@HolyknightVader999 - You do realize the economic disasters the crusades were for the countries in Europe and the Middle East from the roaming armies right? Not to mention other atrocities like the Inquisition and bans of religions outside the majority belief, often leading to cruel punishments. Also, you do realize that most countries in the world, including the US, have a degree of Marxist policies, and have had them for quite a while right?
@@Sylvertaco You truly are a poorly-educated farce. The Crusades caused a rise in trade and economic activity as trade routes followed the marching armies of the Crusaders. The Templars themselves became a center of banking and money-lending for many princely and metropolitan areas of Europe, funding economic growth and laying the foundations for modern banking. Also, the Inquisition's victims are a paltry sum of people who A) could have easily escaped had they told the Inquisitors what they wanted to hear and B) most of whom were tortured because they wanted to die on a hill for something, instead of leaving the country. That, and the Inquisition laid the foundation for the modern-day justice system, with their courts having many features like juries made from good and honest individuals which forms the basis of the modern-day justice system. Without the Crusades and the Inquisition, you wouldn't have modern banking or civilian courts. What did Marxism give us? Genocides in the tens of millions and a slew of countries that are economic failures. Hence why I'd rather have the Inquisition or the Crusaders take over America rather than Marxist failures. At least they'll be more predictable and easy to manage, as well as being better with economics and justice when compared to modern leftists who treat men like scum in civil courts and who act as if money grows on trees. Yeah, and that's why the West as a whole are comprised of economically failing nations, while eastern countries like South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan are more economically stable due to them treating Marxism like the plague that it is.
Long before the enlightenment, St. Thomas Aquainas stated that faith and reason are not opposed to each other. Luther, on the other hand considered reason to be a tool of the devil.
Holy shit I could barely believe what was coming out of this guys mouth at some stages - Jean Jacques Rousseau's philosophy brought down the French state? He is aware what the French state was like at the time of the Revolution right?
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” ― Adam Smith
Wrong. Napoleon only took advantage of the Enlightenment with hindsight in order to seize power, which inevitably succeeded (he was promptly promoted to Major General during the War of the First Coalition. prageru never fails to provide me with comedy
'Author of the virtue of nationalism.' From this guy's wikipedia - 'Hazony wrote that nationalism uniquely provides "the collective right of a free people to rule themselves"'. Nationalism was literally an enlightenment idea. Along with liberalism it was the biggest threat to the 'conservative European monarchs'.. This video is so dishonest it hurts my brain.
leonard u Not per se. Before the Enlightenment many people followed the feudal system still (sans England and the Dutch) which meant people didn’t care much for the country they lived rather they worried about surviving and working the lands of the nobles that owned it. The people had no say in the government, for example think of the French. 97% of the population had no power, only the clergy and the nobility had. Why would someone have nationalistic pride in something that they had nothing to do with? Those ideas only came after what I like to call the “Era of Revolutions”, like the French and American Revolution. Now I left the British and the Dutch out because they were the first to form nationalist ideas like under Hume because there was no feudal system holding them.
fitzy098 Exactly! Think of people like Spinoza who still follows religion but believed it shouldn’t have dealt with politics. Or even Copernicus who was a religious person but was willing to believe the Bible was wrong! He still believed in the Bible!
@@Cris-ep2sc Your argument is built on a fallacy. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Feudalism in theory can exist simultaneously with a nation (a group of people) wanting the right to self-determination and opposing foreign intervention.
I always thought the enlightenment was a process of people thinking critically about the world, rather than taking it for granted that the preists and wizards, or other old men in dresses and pointy hats, were speaking to God and had the answers.
@@redblaze8700 yes the indoctrination of children really works. Ita also very effective when you embed belief into grief. Its a great trick to exploit when someone dies. I have relatives who are over 60 that have yet to grieve for their parents because they are not actually dead......
@@Natsumi170 so are people you would politically agree with though? The enlightenment era produced ideas that are massively foundational to a lot of contemporary texts
@@Natsumi170 I'm not asking you to like Marxism but advancing human civilization and developing new and exciting philosophies does sound quite good actually.
@@ibringit987 Conservatism (as conceived by 18th century Anglo-Germanic Empiricists), is from an axiomatic and praxeological perspective, merely a social movement opposed to RAPID or RADICAL social change... NOT change in general. Conservatism is only opposed to those "progressive" movements which seek to radically alter socio-economic order in infeasible amounts of time. Furthermore, Conservatism seeks to implement the necessary paradigmatic changes to human society in an "incrementalist" or gradual process, one that seeks to dialectically promote 'progressive' social/technological change, whilst preserving essential traditions and safeguarding Republican, arch-classical Institutions. ... Given that Conservatism is the only broadly defined political ideology which attempts this dialectic synthesis, is testament to its efficacy and wide public appeal. Finally, (Classical, Neo-Lib) Conservatives tend to emphasise Pure Empiricism as a mode of Neo-Hegelian pedagogy... That is the propagation of social and economic measures only verifiable by physical (naturalistic) A Posteriori evidence... Conservatism explicitly rejects rationalist conjecture, Actualism, Idealist psychology, and humanist convention. Conservatism also places a strong emphasis on Neo-Kantian Deontological virtue ethics, that which rely on action contemporaneous evaluation of a categorical action or imperative, thus judging its moral worth based upon an essentialist conception of the action alone... NOT what the action's intended consequences were supposed to be, as you Leftists insist... ... The simple fact that you so willingly conflate Conservatism as the antithetical movement to transcendental progress, (both scientific & social) directly indicates that you do not understand what Conservatism actual is or entails... You have likely never invested time in trying to fully comprehend Conservative ethos or philosophy, only subscribing to whichever satirized caricature of Conservative ideals you encountered on a college campus. If you genuinely believe that Conservatism is an ideology which serves to stifle "progress" or embody the diametrical antithesis of scientific development, than you are simply WRONG. No different than if you asserted the sky was purple, or that heliocentrism is a farce.
David Hume was an Atheist who believed that feelings don’t care about your facts. Ben Shapiro leaves the chat. Kant derived many of his ideas from Hume hence „A Critique of Pure Reason.“ I don’t quite get the persistent anti-Kantianism by conservatives except the fact that Kant was against lying.
I think it's ridiculous to imply that communism, Nazism, socialism, feminism, and environmentalism all spawned from the same toxic sludge. Feminism was a product of the Enlightenment, while those other four are ultimately rooted in the "anti-enlightened" Romantic movement of the early nineteenth century. (And the Romantic period was not necessarily bad. What, shall we burn all of Lord Byron's poems because Nietzsche perverted him and then Hitler perverted Nietzsche?) Not to mention that those five have NOT proven to be compatible at various times in modern history. The Soviet Union was extremely anti-environmentalist, the Nazis were stridently anti-feminist, etc.
Probably, and ""The greatest catastrophes of" premodernity "were engineered by individuals who claimed to be exercising" the will of God. Religion was probably a fundamental force in creating and maintaining civilization up to that point, and may still be helpful today. But blaming reason for the catastrophes of bad reasoning is like blaming religion for the catastrophes of bad religions. Keep your religion if you think you need it, but not everyone needs to make your choice.
I always thought that the enlightenment was more about the foundations of modern day science than political theory, also not every idea of the time was necessarily enlightened per say
Sir Francis Bacon who is credited with the scientific method predated the 18th century enlightenment. And he was inspired by pioneer scientists/natural philosophers such as Copernicus centries before him.
Modern science as well as the university has its roots in the High Middle Ages (11-12 centuries), coming into fuller flower in the Reformation. Faith seeking understanding/thinking God's thoughts after Him (Biblical revelation as the foundation for observation and experimentation) is really the foundation for truth and knowledge...something much of the enlightenment philosophy actually worked to undermine.
I personally thought that the enlightenment was more about helping show that we should be skeptical, not to believe everything we are told about the world and was more about conservative ideals
@@Shabeck100 Yeah, that's why every scientist never refers to God or claims his ideas came from God in all the millions of pages of peer-reviewed scientific literature...
In case any die-hard conservatives read this comment, this is basically why the Left calls literally everyone who has ideas about ethnostates or race realism or any of that, a fascist. This is why many popular voices in the "skeptic" community and conservative Right on UA-cam are deemed to be monstrously nazistic. For the layman, this applies to every single person who says, "we need more white babies in America." Fascists, all of them. And they don't even know it most times.
Human inequality is the state of nature. Human equality only exists in the spiritual realm where God created all human souls in His image, but in the material world, some people are stronger, faster, smarter, more attractive, or more charming and persuasive than others. Inequality is the state of nature; human "equality" is a myth that only comes real when one considers the spiritual.
@The Icon of Sin Fascism is merely an emergency government arrangement to fix things under the rule of an absolute dictator. In peaceful times, fascist nations have no reason to keep on going the way they do.
@HolyknightVader999 nope. That's simply not what fascism means. Fascism is the idea that there is a group of people that deserve to be on top of all hierarchies by any means necessary to bring back some glory that existed in a mythological past, but was lost because of equality. It completely rejects the enlightment. It's totalitarian by nature, since a social order in which a lot of people suffer is very unstable unless the state has control over people's lives. However the social order can be achieved democratically, if the conditions are given.
@@matiasgarciacasas558 Wrong again. Fascism is practically socialism with a cross and a flag for ease of digestion. Looking at the Nazis' agenda, outside of the racial stuff, many of their points were points made by other socialist countries. Welfare, controlling business and capital, and making the state the ultimate power in the land, all of these are part of their ideology. Other fascists like Franco and Mussolini didn't have much racial ideology, and other fascists like the dictatorship in Portugal openly despised Hitler's racial theories and openly allowed Jews to walk in Portugal while the Jews in Poland and Germany were being turned into dust.
Christian men were the backbone of renaissance science. Their fascination with our creator drove them to learn about the mysteries of His creation (the universe).
Let's overlook the fact that before the Napoleonic War there was the 30 Years War, which was more contained (being focused in Germany) at a time when there was less people and killed more people which was motivated by religion and the politics of traditional monarchists. Napoleon did nothing that was bad that the Europeans were not already doing and instituted genuine reforms like making Jews citizens or marginalizing nobles, which were often rolled back after his fall.
@Richard Fox That's what the Constitution and 'checks and balances' are for. I was told that, after a discussion of whether people were 'good' or 'bad,' the person who maintained that humanity is fundamentally good locked his car. 'Why did you do that if you think people are good?' his friend asked. Smiling, he replied, 'That's just to keep them that way.' We humans know what 'good' is (Aristotle). One important job of ours is to keep each other that way.
Kant was not part of the enlightenment. He was the one that ended it and ushered in romanticism. Even Kant said "I had to limit reason to make room for faith'. This is not an anti-'faith and tradition' individual. He was an anti-reason individual. He was the one that developed an extensive philosophical framework as to why our senses cannot see reality and at that point, reason became subjective (took the subjective side in the object/subject distinction).
"The Enlightenment’s critics, including John Selden, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke" Being critics of 'The Enlightenment' is not an apropriate phrasing, as most people see these thinkers being able to spread their ideas as a byproduct of the Enlightenment. What you mean to say is they were critical of the concept of progressive movements that sought to make radical changes to society, IE the basis for most conservative positions.
It is true that the Anglo-American system of government goes back to traditional Germanic and Saxon law, not the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment thinkers only became popular long after they died. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, among others, claimed the American revolution was essentially about English men claiming their ancestral rights. Jefferson, notably, wanted the mythical founders of England, Hengist and Horsa, on one side of the Seal of the United States because our "system of government," derived from them. That is, the ancient Germans had a deliberative process of self-governance, including the election of kings, or their rule by consent of the tribes, and a parliamentary system in the form of the "Thing." They felt that things began to go wrong with the Normam invasion, who imported a feudal system to England.
@@landofthesilverpath5823 freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc are all part of the enlightenment ideas.. go to gu*llotine for not supporting the republic and its incorruptible virtues of liberty enough times!
@@democracyisnon-negociable3819 those ideas emerged because of people recognized the need for ecumenicalism. It's 100% tied to the experiences of the wars of religions due to schism in the church. If people have the freedom to express whichever denomination they want, there is no need to fight over which church is the state church. But the idea of political freedom and deliberation among a people and rights of due process goes back further to antiquity and is the basis of anglo saxon, and therefore, American law. The magna carte predates the protestant revolutions. So freedom of speech is a relic of the Enlightenment understanding of how to deal with the wars of religion, but political freedom and our way of government goes back further. An example of this is the fact that many Americam states had literal state religions. New Jersey was practically founded as a theocracy and only protestants could hold office until the early 19th centuries. In connecticut, the congregational church was controlled and supported by the state government-- a new town had to have a church in order to be chartered by the government and attending Sunday services was mandatory. But the political structure we have today was largely there.
@@landofthesilverpath5823 To claim that modern Common Law used in the Anglosphere is the same as Common law used in medieval England is one of the dumbest and intellectually dishonest things I’ve read so far. All civilizations are thousands of years old. Doesn’t change the fact that they changed drastically over those thousands of years, or that modern society was shaped in almost every way by the enlightenment.
3:20 _"The greatest catastrophes of modernity were engineered by individuals who claimed to be exercising reason."_ Man, that's seriously profound statement!
Let me illustrate how trivial and unprofound that is: "The greatest achievements in modern medicine were engineered by individuals who claimed to be exercising reason" Get it?
L.E.V.I it only sounds unprofound because you took a discussion about society and redirected it to something unrelated to the topic. In other words, apples to oranges
@@levi5073 The statement you presented is not comparable to the original statement, a more comparable statement would be: *The most destructive acts of evil are motivated by good intentions*
Unless you were trying to make some kind of subtle pun about the relation between religion and kneeling (e.g., "For to Me every knee will bend, and every tongue will swear," Isaiah 45:23), the word you wanted was "knell."
BqpahDoes Stuff that’s what I thought until I realized prageru just a platform for independent people to express their views. So some of the people might have views a little different than others
Your idea of Pergeru is the same of those who know nothing about PregerU : They actually are a huge , very diverse platform where a large group of intellectuals present short videos about any given subject under the sun , and can differ among themselves. Something UNLIKE what we can find in leftist TV, and colleges nowadays. Besides, presenting all that Napoleon did for the French is in no way an act of "praising" him, it's an objective view that doesn't elevate him as a George Washington of the French, but gives him the credit for whatever he actually did( like what many emperors in ancient history get credit for without making them sinless or perfect ). I am not a fan of him, and there is no way we can find the PregerU video about him like a praise that will see him as a "hero" that will contrast the view of the philosophy that influenced him presented in this video as a contradiction within PregerU as a platform . Besides all this , and for your information, PregerU is not for the average viewer ( assuming that means ppl who don't think for themselves ) for that you have The Young Turks, Secular Talk, The Packman Show, The Sam Seder Show and the likes. Right there you can find the most unfunded , void of thoughts, disconnected from reality nonsense you could ever find in a free society. They are necessary not just to help independent thinkers to grow by seeing "the other side" of the coin; but also to illustrate how free we are in a Republic that embraces capitalism and freedom of expression: they freely express, criticize , and live in complete opposition to the system that enables them to be as free as they are, and this thanks to the Declaration of Independence , constitution, and values they reject. It's a beauty. Fare well in whatever you do. You are free to do that, and PregerU will continue to show you ( unlike "college" and their nonsense about gender studies) the sausage is made.
PragerU: Enlightenment brought religious conservatism Me: nope, it was classical liberalism, which everyone in modern society abandoned, both the left and the right
The Enlightenment period was important as you said! Many new ideas, however crazy were brought which brought on the ideas such as capitalism and people having a say in the state. Their cherished capitalism came from the Enlightenment because of the hate for absolutist rulers.
I don't think it's fair to say "classical liberalism" was abandoned since it directly influenced philosophies that came afterward. Elements of it can still be seen in modern philosophy.
samiamrg7 That’s fair. Many of the famous philosophes that came afterward and advanced the belief system were influenced by people before them, like how Rousseau was influenced by Locke. While Locke was (somehow) influenced by Hobbes. They were all influenced by someone before into making their own theories, so the echoes can still be found today.
Rousseau brought down the french state? What about the crippling economy, the fact that french people didnt have what to eat and were starting while the monarchy was living în luxury and ignorant of People s pain. Reactionaries always paint a world where material conditions do not exist, as only ideas are driving things around. To give an example, many Times i might watch a movie that makes me angry about the world, but being Lucky and having all my material desires met, my need to act on that anger is greatly diminshed. On the other hand, if I were broke and barely had what to eat, Who knows what i would think about really doing
Since the Enlightenment, in the great tension between rationalism (how we would like things to be so they make sense to us) and empiricism (how things are), we have been blaming the world for not fitting the beds of “rational” models, have tried to change humans to fit technology, fudged our ethics to fit our needs for employment, asked economic life to fit the theories of economists, and asked human life to squeeze into some narrative. Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms
I disagree with this statement at completely. The battle between rationalism and empiricism has been a dominant divide long before the enlightenment, and was first recorded in ancient greece. Plato and Aristotle were the founders of western rationalism (based on Socrates), and were sharply critiqued by other greek schools of thought like Epicureanism and Cynicism, which were proto-empiricist. The Catholic church adopted neo- Platonic/Aristotelian thought (thanks to Augustine) because its epistomology fit with the early dogma of revealed grace, and largely ignored empirical thinkers (even demonizing Epicurus). The enlightenment was a re-examination of this tradition, this time without theology, while opponents like Hume and other romantics challenged the wave of revived rationalism with the same empirical questions. This is not an enlightenment problem it is an issue inherent in western philosphical tradition since ancient times.
@@iannordin5250 Yeah, if you check out the ancient greeks, they are asking themselves what knowledge is etc. Totally postmodernism! Also, Platon could write beautifully.
It makes sense if you think about it, people who believe that theirs is the one true good ideology generally use force to impose it on others(cough cough antifa cough). What's more forceful than a death star?
Mathew Reckamp the number of groups (especially conservative ones like alt right or kkk) that you skipped over just to shoehorn antifa into that comment is ridiculous.
@@josephbradley2575 the kkk and other "alt-right" groups such as white nationalists are actually left wing groups. Seriously, if you ever listened to Richard Spencer talking then you'd know that the only difference between him and Burney Sanders is that he wants to exclude black and brown people from the welfare system.
Many good ideas, but I think you misinterpret Enlightenment thinkers. Kant, after all, wrote the Critique of Pure Reason, and was hardly dogmatic in his search for solid principles of philosophy. He showed that rational thought was limited, that some very important questions had no final answers at all. Kant followed in the tradition of Hume. Kant also tried to find a principle of morality which wouldn't rest solely on religious dogma, but basically came up with a variant of the golden rule.
I can't agree with Kant or you. The ten commandments and following Jesus Christ, in doing the right thing for the right reason, is morality so kant made a pitiful attempt to redefine morality but is just his attempt to understand God.
They completely misrepresented Kant's philosophy in a suggestive way, even linking him to Marx. As a Kantianist I can only contemn Marx. PragerU, whose videos I have watched for years now, most of the time agreeing with them, now chose to lump Kant with Marx together, only because you can use Kant's philosophy to criticize religion. (Kant however was Christian and believed that God is the perfect Good.) Kant made me realize that leftism is wrong, so I stopped being a leftist and became conservative. American conservatives are often so toxic because they have such a stupid religious agenda. Here in Germany, it isn't rare to be an atheist conservative, lol. As a Kantianist I cannot tolerate that you called the Categorical Imperative a variant of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is egotistic, hedonistic and utilitarian in nature. The Categorical Imperative forces you to go against your wishes and against everyone's wishes, if it is morally correct. The CI operates with reason and forbids you actions that are fallacies if universalized, the GR wants you to think about what is the best for you.
I don't disagree, but obviously it's hard to summarize philosophical history in a 5 minute video. In watching other recent commentaries on the Enlightenment, I think what they may be trying to say is that after reviewing the past 100 years, we can easily observe that the idea that pure reason will lead us to the best results for humanity is ridiculous. Jordan Peterson commented in one of his recent lectures that the majority of modern technology has either come from the West or from highly westernized countries. And as much as some may try to disconnect the West from Judeo-Christian values, you can't. Those values took centuries to develop within the culture, are written into the very laws that govern us and have become part of the way we think whether we are religious or not. These new attempts in western culture to pretend that a new generation of thinkers can get socialism right this time around is just laughable.
@@jlupus8804 PragerU doesn't have perspective, it just lies. Literal lies and misinformation, you shouldn't take anything they try to push as anything more than bias confirmation for conservatives
@@roosterssaloon You can say that about Crash Course too. "The Green Brothers don't have perspective, they just lie. Literal lies and misinformation, you shouldn't take anything they try to push as anything more than bias confirmation for SJWs".
@@jlupus8804 you can say that, but you'd be lying too. Especially in this video, because they literally lie about HISTORICAL facts, it's so telling you'd defend ignorance LOL
PragerU: "actually since 99% of people a few hundred years ago would be considered conservative today, WE should actually get all the credit for improvements in society"
@@iaroslavtitov2270 Reason is basically what is in your head (logic) when it is applied to reality. Objectively the ideas either succeed or fail regardless of our emotions or revelations. Science is just the systemization of the process of reason.
Where Kant really gets it wrong is the "let go of the past" part. Without the past you've got no vantage point nor a track record of what works and what doesn't. The fact that modern colleges don't note that seriously discredit their status as institutions of "higher learning".
Bahahahahahaha the irony that you think it is more woke to believe in ancient fairy tales. Can even a single one of you explain how you combine the concept of God creating Adam and Eve with the theory of evolution completely decimating this story? The ground that has been lost by your primitive religions will never be gained back, sorry.
@@ajnode maybe the gods under YWHY's(is that how his name is written?) leadership made Adam and Eve the first civilized humans, who could read and write. The apple was ambition, and it caused them to lead their tribe to many wars. And Methuselah probably lived 119 years. Just to be clear, I'm an Omnist. I believe in all religions, and atheism, plus my own stuff sprinkled in.
Ivan the Great 2.0 The Universe is Infinite and this includes all Truth and Fiction. So it’s all true and all false. History is “His Story”, which is why we keep hearing about a handful of people instead of 8 billion stories.
Yes. It seems there was a need to replace the term "enlightened" with something less literate to raise popularity among the many, that without the slightest analysis, impulsively buy into fashionable stupid-speak. It seems our new "woke" is therefore roughly translated as bamboozled. Fake enlightenment grounded on the most superficial of intellectual foundations.
Kant was wrong on many levels, but the first is one answer. Take a swimmer. Some people swim faster in backstroke, others in butterfly. There is no one answer. The universe could have began out of nothing, or out of a collapsed pre universe, or one of over 300 million gods in human religions alone. A country sometimes works best with monarchy, or republicanism, or democracy, or Technocracy, or socialism, depending on the situation. Some people work long hours, other short ones, and in both cases, both can produce great results. It's like when Cara asked "is four a lot" and the doctor said "depends on the context". No one explanation, method, ideology, plan, or path, will always work as intended for everyone.
"Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Winston Churchill Problem is, too many are pathetically clueless about history and will drag the rest of us into the ignorant abyss.
I’m torn on this video. I love the details about how great ideas existed before the foundation of America but have to disagree that it was common sense that was really what we should credit. The truth is it was the Protestant Movement that should get the lions share of the credit. Only by creating a safe space for ideas to exist outside of the Roman Church allowed for the idea a freedom to become a reality.
Studd Muffin Not absolutely but many in the Roman Church discouraged open thinking at all levels. Galileo and Martin Luther both are pretty good examples of that.
@Studd Muffin your comment works more in favor of op than yourself. the "insult" of the pope revolved around their disagreement of geocentrism in the first place. Luther's quote also supports OP because he himself was a devout catholic as well his 95 theses (which I assume he was meaning to reference) were widely regarded as heresy.
ah yes, the famously free thinking Protestant movement that tolerated so many other people's opinions that they split into dozens of different churches
This person is all mixed up in his head. To begin with, religious wars brought the most victims. And to compare the creator of the new Europe Napoleon with the Communists is not even absurdity is a crime.
Reason is independent of experience? what? reason isn't some thing in a void or something floating in the nether, It REQUIRES experience to even apply. Reason is fallible because humans are fallible, reason is the product of humans.
Anyone who wants to seriously examine the legacy of the Enlightenment should look at the work of Alan Charles Kors, a conservative and a real scholar. Kors would find the argument in this video ridiculous. For example, Hume was not a traditionalist - he was an extreme skeptic. Kors has published many books, but his most accessible works are audio/visual courses from The Teaching Company. They are superb and will radically alter your glib assumptions about history. PragerU is pure propaganda of the worst kind. But Kors shows that one can be a conservative without being an utter fool.
“Most of the progress we’ve made comes from conservative traditions openly sceptical of human reason.” Noted Socialist Albert Einstein may disagree with this.
PragerU: Us conservatives believe in facts and logic while the left is irrational. Also morality is objective and it's our morality. Also PragerU: Reason and search for objective truth are bad because Napoleon, Marx, and Hitler also used reason and objective truth.
PragerU is a platform for different speakers where they say different opinions (of course on the right side of the spectrum since it’s conservative primarily). No contradiction here unless it’s the opinion from a single person itself (Dennis Prager) in his ‘firechat talks’
@@tadm123 it seems they are just a conservative propaganda site that posts anything which contradicts mainstream ideas. Even if it is completely wrong and backwards. In this case they are trying to rewrite history where the monarchists and theocrats were correct and everybody else is wrong. And also somehow the US was not founded on enlightenment ideas.
PragerU literally spent last week’s video praising Napoleon and now they’re... well... It’s like PragerU is getting more and more classically conservative
Except there's nothing new. With a quick glance on history you'd find not only that things we're exploring had been explored but they have been a plague to humanity for as long as it existed.
Interesting video. I never posited that the Founders created their own forms of government, and instead worked to attempt to improve the over 700 years of tyrannical behaviors by other nations prior to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. This could be construed as enlightened, however, their intention was to insistently preserve the individual rights of the people and strive to give them a greater voice than Government. Our government of D.C, was never intended to be a permanent living and congregational space for our representatives, rather they were supposed to remain in their home districts so they'd be closer to the ear of their population. This idea was never passed, and as a result, the people are dismissed to the arrogance of their representatives. The founders were 'enlightened' because of historical experiences of the people, they collected from Rome, Greece, France, Italy, and England, to name a few. Their hope, was the people of this country to NOT repeat the mistakes of the past foreign historical governments. If this does not qualify our founders to something other than just liberators from an oppressive England, I dont know what to tell ya.
I am yet to read about or meet a proponent of the enlightenment who gives credit only to the enlightenment ideas of the seventeenth and eighteenth century for all of modern science, medicine, political freedom and market economies. This is the first time I have heard that such a person exists and I find it hard to believe. Many enlightenment thinkers were familiar with ideas from Socrates, Epicurus, Aristotle and other great classical thinkers, so the starting premise of this video seems to be a straw man. No body can deny that there were free thinkers who made significant contributions to political freedom before the enlightenment, but most of the progress in modern science, medicine and market economies was made subsequent to the enlightenment. The speaker repeated the enlightenment's emphasis on reason and mentioned some of the terrible things that were done by some historical figures who were convinced that their actions were reasonable and tried to use that to criticize the enlightenment. Of course, many crimes have been committed in the name of reason, but that is a problem with human nature and our tendency to rationalise illogical beliefs and actions. The enlightenment thinkers were aware that our reasoning abilities were prone to error, so they encouraged open debate and the scientific method to refine our reason. These thinkers also had some illogical ideas, held ridiculous beliefs, and some may have engaged in despicable acts, but one thing they all emphasized is that all men should think for themselves and apply reason in understanding the world, and not allow the traditions of their fathers, which like them were prone to errors, dictate their lives. They encouraged others to extend their insights beyond the traditions of their ancestors. The speaker made it look like all enlightenment thinkers proposed human reason at the expense of history, tradition and experience. Most of them were definitely against tradition, but I think many of them were in support of learning from history and experience. In the end the speaker attempted to credit conservatism, rather than the enlightenment, for most of human progress. While I do see some influence of conservative thought on free market economies and political freedom, I don't see a cause and effect relationship with modern science and medicine. The speaker obviously revealed his bias against the enlightenment and I hope he overcomes it and gives the enlightenment the credit it deserves.
For the record, one of Kant's most important works was called the Critique of Pure Reason. He was not a strict rationalist. He very much thought that pure reason had its limits. Regardless if this video has adequately demonstrated the problems of rationalism (it hasn't), I see no reason to associate Kant with the position that reason, completely independent of experience, is infallible.
The Renaissance, a rediscovery of the philosophy and science from the ancient world, led to the enlightenment. So yes these ideas were around before the enlightenment.
In school they taught us how the enlightenment was the best thing ever because secularism helped us advance. Didnt believe it. Thanks for reassuring me
Normally I tend to agree with Prager U on most subjects, but this one I have some issues with. Yes, there were indeed fundamentals of The Enlightenment growing in Europe long before Kant. Nonetheless, Kant was the first person to pull it all together and call it The Enlightenment. No one is saying that he pulled it all out of his ass. All those ideas that led to the Enlightenment, inspired the best aspects of Western Civilization, including and especially the reverence for REASON as man’s most powerful capacity. Our ability to reason is what truly separates us from animals. This all of course inspired the brilliant minds who were the founders of The United States. No one is saying that our Constitution and Declaration of Independence are utterly original, but they are products of the Age of Enlightenment created by people we wouldn’t have called conservatives back then, but we would have called them liberals. Classical liberals in today’s parlance. Strangely classical liberalism closely resembles conservatism or libertarianism today. I believe that Prager University is concerned with the discussion of The Enlightenment leaving out all aspects of God and Morality whereas I clearly see that they are there. The founders were deists. Christian mostly and while their passion for reason might have called into question some aspects of the Bible, it seems to me they used reason to support the existence of God in order to support the ideas of natural rights and property rights. Today postmodernists seek to rip apart every aspect of Western Civilization and replace other, with complete absurdities including and especially the idea of God as our primary moral compass. But what do I know. I’m just a caveman engineer. #embraceTheEnlightenment
Bye the way guys. If you haven't understood it yeet let me enlighten you.😂 This is a channel that can be a bit manipulating and it might use words and descriptions that might not tell the howl story. This can make this "educational" channel less reliable and you should at least be doing a bit research by yourself. This is also important for most political channel and you should always be sceptical. I've just noticed that this channel dose ofte l leaves out important information. PS. To be critical you have to be able to see things from more than one point of viwe so plz try to watch some more liberal channel's too.
So what did we learn today?
Hitler, who founded an anti-modernity movement actually really liked modernity.
Rationality and skepticism mean that you're intolerant of irrational views, which is bad apparently.
The scientific revolution wasn't a thing because some king founded a college in 1500.
And the US Constitution, which is so liberal it almost verbatim quotes Locke and Rousseau, actually had nothing to do with the enlightenment.
I love learning!
Hitler was not an enemy of modernity because fascism is based on philosophical vitalism, the ubermench theory, sorelism and other ideas that oppose liberalism, rationalism and individualism, but are not pre modern. Also scientific racism has its roots on modernity and last but not least fascism is pro industrial and technological.
The US Constitution is, despite the link to Locke and Rousseau is a very reactionary and counter-revolutionary document.
"Hitler, who founded an anti-modernity"
He did not.
@@BuckDanny2314 except he did, fascism/nazism is a reaction against modernism
@@TheZectorian Well, he did not. Sure, he opposed a certain kind of modernity, but not modernity altogether.
Adam Smith was part of the Enlightenment, he was the person who developed laissez-faire capitalism. This is such a basic fact and it's so easy to prove, it's incredible that you would suggest otherwise.
Edit: ok he didn't develop laissez-faire capitalism, he laid the foundations of capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism was developed by other people.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
He didn't actually want laissez Faire Capitalism, although he did identify it. He advised against the Mercantilism of the day, and Marx based his works on Adam Smith. But yeah he was an enlightenment
SoapySid TV m.ua-cam.com/video/jI1_wctd1_w/v-deo.html
The guy clearly states that it's not thanks "JUST" to the Enlightenment. Watch it again. And tell modern day "college" to give you your money back.
@The Icon of Sin who are you talking about?
""Millions died as Napoleon’s armies sought to rebuild every government in Europe in light of the one correct political theory he believed was permitted by Enlightenment philosophy." You realize that associating Emmanuel Kant's views on reason with someone who thinks their reasoning is right is in no way an argument, right?
@Luís Filipe Andrade - Then that should be the argument attempted to be made here, not this. The above example is the equivalent of saying "John Brown killed dozens of individuals in his pursuit of abolition, therefore abolition must be bad right???"
You remind me of these Cancel Culture Maniacs we have now
@Luís Filipe Andrade - You did not understand my reply. The analogy was intentionally meant to not make sense to bring to light that a similar association like was done with Napoleon also does not make sense. The video used one person's justifications to say that the belief itself was bad. Ergo applying that same logic to someone like John Brown makes his belief (ie abolition) bad. It is meant to not make sense to bring to light why the argument in the video also does not make sense
@@maninblack9271 - You remind me of most people on these threads who think they are contributing by not providing any arguments...
@@Sylvertaco my point is your quatation is suitable for those cancel culture maniac who refuse to debate and defending self belief as truth. Not to equate you with them.
Hmm, there's nothing like calling values which were progressive at the time conservative because you forgot how time works for a second there.
And then say that the french revolution was bad because people died
@@jorgealbertohernandezgutie7696 Yeah, we should have just kept feudalism bro, much more redpilled
@Luís Filipe Andrade They were better at the time, now liberals have come with better ideas, aka progress, but conservatives are like "BuT I doN't wAnT tO pAy fOr otHer PeOple'S hEaLthCare, I woUlD RatHeR paY My oWn InsUrANcE (which works the same way, but with corporations price gouging you) aNd waTcH PeOpLe dIe On THe sTrEEt".
@Luís Filipe Andrade Well, I guess you would love working 14 hours a day to give crops to your masters, who will give you just enough to not starve through the day and live in giant castles and mansions, declaring themselves above everyone else, and die if you refuse to... Wait, this starts to sound a lot like our current situation. Interesting, right?
@Luís Filipe Andrade Actually, some founders of capitalism were just the old elites trying to keep themselves above everyone else, and it has worked. In the old days of America, there were corporate cities that were controlled by one corporation, which would provide housing, food, transport, and some other necessities in exchange of 12+ hours of labour a day and selling your whole life to them. The capitalists were your new kings, and it was either that or dying out on the streets, and little has changed from then to now.
I love how one of his only pieces of evidence that Enlightenment ideas lead to disaster is basically saying “You like enlightenment thought? So did Hitler.”
It's the exact kind of argument that he would be rejecting if we used it to describe religious ideas. Hey you can't judge all religious people because some of them killed millions and derailed entire civilizations!
Even that isnt correct. Nazism and fascism were explicit rejections of the idea of liberal democracy first created during the enlightenment.
@@Stonemask5 Oh yea don't get me wrong, they are completely wrong on EVERY level.
You like mustaches and well kept hair. So did Hitler.
Oh you don't like smoking? Hitler agrees with you
I could have sworn I just saw a PragerU video the other day praising Napoleon.
That would be biased and blind hatred, if you don't agree with a person on one thing so you must disagree or dislike every thing he does. Also pragerU do not formulate the whole topic with historical examples. The people invited to speak arrange their thoughts and views.
Almost like they'll say everything and anything, which is only possible if you lie
Diversity of opinion among conservatives, as compared to?
GG Allin how dare they not blindly hate someone!!!
@GG Allin
Compared to the toadies funded by politicians whose solutions always require the politicians to declare themselves dictators and control how everyone lives their lives.
www.democraticunderground.com/10022624231
www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
61,911,000 Murdered: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
35,236,000 Murdered: People's Republic of China
20,946,000 Murdered: National Socialist Germany
10,214,000 Murdered: The Nationalist Regime
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
2,035,000 Murdered: Communist Party of Kampuchea in Cambodia
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
1,670,000 Murdered: Vietnam
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani State
1,072,000 Murdered: socialist Yugoslav
1,663,000 Murdered? North Korea
1,417,000 Murdered? Mexico
1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia
wow they really didn't do their research on Hume since he was one of the most important early skeptic thinkers and influenced Kant's ideas a ton
Yeah, Kant was a critique of Hume, not the other way around.
It's kind of funny that PragerU supports Hume, the agnostic who argues that nothing can be learnt through logic, and historical knowledge is uncertain (things which occurred in the past will not necessarily occur in the future), who set out to destroy the Christian view of man;
rather than Kant, who believed that empirical knowledge was uncertain, but also argues that there are certain categories of knowledge which are completely logical.
Ironically, Kant himself said he was writing in response to dogmatic rationalism, to which Hume woke him up; Kant himself was not dogmatic.
I don't think John Locke did anything better too. I mean many frenchmen supported him like Voltaire and this abstract state of nature, of going beyond current and into an imaginary state, that latter idea certainly influenced rousseau .(not hobbes)
The problem really is that we replaced the prejudices of religion with the dogmatism of secular ideas, and this would show disasters like a cancer growing inside Europe.
@Richard Fox maybe because Hegel is far more complicated than Hume?
They didn't do their research at all
Art Irony Its not that they don't know this, they are propagandists that's all
PragerU: Hitler claimed to use reason, therefore reason is bad.
You have 100 likes on your comment
The Nazis started with the conclusion first not the hypothesis.
@@ezefinkielman4672 yes
@@ezefinkielman4672 but you think social justice starts with the conclusion? Nope! I'm the past there was some scientists that believed some rąces to be infęrior but it had been completely disproven in the future by many studies
Anyone who does anything in the name of scientific pursuit is being influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment era, so all scientific studies, good or bad, have to be influenced by the Enlightenment ideas, no?
PragerU: Let's see how much misinformation we can put into one video!
Thanks for the thought output Samantha B. You look great in your new picture
Yep.
The sleep of reason produces monsters. Goya painting. And that was 1797.
@The Guardian Monke that is what they said
@The Guardian Monke I mean, monarchy can be good.
Yeah let's dismiss one of the most important and studied western philosophers in like 30 seconds.
Yep, some of PragerU videos I like, but this is a hack job to promote traditional conservative values.
I don’t dislike a lot of these values, but to dismiss the enlightenment and it’s thinkers like this is intellectually dishonesty.
Defending monarchy isn’t a good look Prager.
They're not defending a monarchy lmfao they're defending freedom of ideology and common sense
Dilly Tante they’re defending the French monarchy and attacking the French Revolution which rise up against that oppressive system. If you can come up with another way to interpret his literal words, you go ahead I guess.
I wonder if PragerU knows what happened to the defenders of the monarchy in France?
@@Lisey_Ann you do realize that freedom of ideology and common sense is a part of the enlightenment and leftist thought. Also PragerU is like THE DEFINITION OF ANTI-Enlightenment.
The_Blazer the same thing that’s going to happen to Prager u I do believe.
They literally say that logic, reason and science are bad. And people believe this. Thousands of people liked it.
Not true. They are not saying that logic, reason and science are bad. Actually Christianity and tradition has played a big role in the scientific revolution and western philosophy
@@jonjonboi3701 The reason why Europe got so far ahead technologically is because they had to look for resources. they had to explore and thus encounter new idea's. They then used these idea's with their own to make better ones. Western philosophy has it's roots in Greek scholar's. These idea's were spread by the conquest of Alexander the great. This caused a mixing of idea's from the west and east. Then Indian scholars collected their thought together with the Greek ones and had a scientific golden age.
These were then absorbed by the Islamic caliphate that rose in the 800 and collected all knowledge from east and west again. Thus causing another golden age using many different idea's instead of just their own traditions. This then bleed back into Europe via both the crusades and the Muslim conquest of the Iberian peninsula (Spain and Portugal). Slowly boiling in Sothern Europe until the renaissance kicked into full gear in Italy. City's like Venice that traded with the Muslims also collected books from the afore mentioned golden ages. These were then again combined with their own knowledge and the slow bleed of knowledge from Spain.
The exploration of Vasco da Gama and others again brought knowledge from all over the world and then caused the scientific revolution and following that the enlightenment. This golden age hasn't stopped because now scientist from all over the world work together all the time to combine their knowledge.
While using reason powered technologies to make and post this video 😂
Thousands of people are dumabsses.
@@jonjonboi3701 shut up communist
Hazony: decries movements ending in "ism"
Also hazony: writes a book called "The Virtue of Nationalism"
Oops, guess he forgot
most underrated comment
Hazony kind of forgot about consistency.
Lol true m.ua-cam.com/video/jI1_wctd1_w/v-deo.html
Nationalism existed LONG before Leftists made up all of their ISMS.
Leftists create ISMS to drown out the important ones.
You obviously fell for it 😂
Comoroo any evidence for this claim?
PragerU: Critical thinking is bad. The movement that pushed critical thinking was awful. Don't think. Don't analyze why things are bad. Just let rich conservatives think for you.
Congratulations,
You have thoroughly misinterpreted every faucet of this video.
Nicholas Stancel congratulations. You buy into an awful, garbage ideology
@@thatsjonah And what ideology would that be?
@@unhomesenzill4366 These left-wing critics don't seem to comprehend that the video itself is merely an academic excoriation of Enlightenment "Rationalistic Metaphysics" and thereby the endemic processes of inductive a priori pedagology generally embedded in the institutions of the time.
They see this video and automatically assume that this is a general condemnation of enlightenment science and classical liberalism. This is commensurate I suppose, with the typical "Evil, elitist Conservative" inferiority complex.
@@nicholasstancel reddit
PragerU: There is only one truth
Also PragerU: There is more than one truth
That's right truth only exists one, the truth. But ideas and opinion everyone has yours and you determine if it's right or wrong
Nothing new here
@@james6309 In this video, they attack Kant for saying that there is only one answer to questions, despite the fact that they have argued the same in the past. Also noteworthy, in this video they attack Napoleon for being a terrible liberal conqueror, and then *literally the next week* they make a video about how cool and important a guy Napoleon is. It's almost as if PragerU doesn't actually care about truth, but instead care about their political agenda.
@@firetarrasque4667 About answers, they're right don't exist only one correct. For example, this video you mentioned, the question is: are Napoleon cool? One guy thinks he is, another thinks he's not, they put their opinions and you as a spectator chose in what to believe. More than one answer.
But this doesn't change the only one truth, that Napoleon caused wars
I know it's weird to see people who disagree in a small thing on the same side, being on the left (that blindly follows everything the MSM tells to follow without any divergence)
But this is democracy and real media showing both sides
@@james6309 But PragerU doesn't present themselves as a bunch of people gathered together to debate ideas, they're a political think tank, which is why it sticks out so much to have them say blatantly contradictory things like that.
I might add, they don't normally tell both sides to a story. Take their video on Margaret Thatcher. If that was all you knew about her, you'd probably think she was a good leader. You wouldn't know about her support of Pinochet, or the fact that Northern Britain is *still* recovering from her time in power, or how she refused to seat members of Parliament because they held views she didn't like, or how she funded illegal death squads in Northern Ireland. None of those are spin, those are all things she objectively did, but they're never mentioned.
Side note, I thought PragerU liked nationalism. They made a video called "Why you should be a nationalist". Not sure why they're fine with the brutal actions Thatcher took to crush it in the Irish.
@@firetarrasque4667 You have people who disagree with each other in the right, you don't have this in the left, for example, Le Pen is basically a leftist but as she disagrees with the left immigration policies, she's a nazi, fascists, homophobic, racist, etc, etc
You forgot to mention give Hong Kong back to China, she had bad policies as every politician have, but personally, I don't think they need to show that, it's all over the media, I heard this who you say about her more times than I heard my name. But topics not very common, like this one, you heard both sides on this video
Last Prager hottake: NAPOLEON WAS GREAT
this Prager hottake: NAPOLEON KILLED MILLIONS.....
Something tells me they aren't being entirely truthful....
Fargoth Bosmer from the right wing sociopathic perspective there's no inconsistency there
Well, you can both be great and havie killed millions. That's why the "great" in Alexander the great, who was no different from Napoleon. Better to be great only, not a killer, though.
Another uncharitable strawman from unintelligent leftists that think of a person as monolithical. You forgot to add a second part that puts it in proper context:
-NAPOLEON WAS GREAT because (explains reasons)
-NAPOLEON KILLED MILLIONS because (explains reasons)
Hope I enlightened you
tadm123, Evropa, More than,
I’m noticing a severe lack of nuance on the left and you have as well
If you take PragerU seriously, I feel truly sorry for you.
@chad nazbol *cricket noises, with nervous stares*
I just come for the laugh
@@angrytoilet24real98 based doesn't care about your cringe
PragerU does spread a lot of credible information for the most part. If you don’t PragerU seriously then I truly feel sorry for you. You can be just like the rest of the delusional leftists out there
@@jonjonboi3701 pragurU made a video Defending Robert E Lee
Next video: "Why feudalism is the best system."
Oh,just the old version of capitalism!!
And don't forget about monarchy, the best political system ever.
@@maestrulgamer9695 it even has trickle down economics!
@@maestrulgamer9695
What?
"Did you know Hitler and Stalin wernt into feudalism? the lamestreme media don't teach that in university do they?"
The enlightenment was hardly unified in it's thinking. Some were rationalists (Descartes for example) and some were empiricists (Locke). Hume also whom you mentioned as a more conservative reaction to the enlightenment is generally considered part of it, and he was probably actually the most radical empiricist of all. Kant also was not completely focused on pure reason, he was more of a synthesis between the pure rationalism of people like Descartes and the pure empiricism of Hume. Hell his most famous work is "Critique of Pure Reason" were he critiques... Pure reason. And in the political sphere it wasn't unified. Montesquieu, while not inventing the idea of checks and balances, popularized it in intellectual spheres. Voltaire and many philosophes actually wanted despots to rule them, while others just wanted liberal democracy. Rousseau's more radical philosophy has been used to justify all sorts of political ideology from the far left to far right as well as just normal liberalism with his idea of the "general will." Economically, people like John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith advocated free marmet capitalism, aka classical liberalism. This was not conservative at the time. This was coming with the rise of capitalism over feudalism and mercantilism. Capitalism in it's time was a newer much more liberal and free system than the ones which had existed not long before. As you mention Marx, he was a couple steps AWAY from the Enlightenment. He was a post-Hegelian philosopher, who was himself post-Kantian. So while yes, he was in ways influenced by the Enlightenment, almost every philosopher in his time in Europe was a product of the Enlightenment. He rejected enlightenment economics favoring a stateless, classless society, which has not really ever happened on any large scale. But in the end, the Enlightened thinkers did popularize many of the liberal ideas we hold dear today and which were still foundational in America. Many of the founding fathers were deists and most were influenced by enlightenment ideas like the social contract. They were almost certainly familiar with The Spirit of the Laws, and many had probably read it. Paine's philosophy was based on enlightenment thinking and he was responsible for convincing many to join the revolutionary cause. The Constitution is largely based on enlightenment liberalism, even if it's not the only influence on it.
Agreed! Your comment is more accurate than this video.
Fascinating view...
This guy is hilarious. Centuries of philosophical debate brushed aside, Kant is just wrong. Rousseau, just wrong. Marx, just wrong. The guys with the english names, yes they're right.
@@j___9594 would you like to elaborate?
@@tbshbrmr5423 ua-cam.com/video/uPYl5k-vqMc/v-deo.html
You must be an idiot. PragerU got it right about the enlightenment
@@jonjonboi3701 And you must have a PhD in philosophy and lots of published articles to sustain your claim
@Don't Know *atlas shrugs* lol
Weren't Hume and Smith part of the "Scottish Enlightenment"?
Yes, and Hume was far more radically anti-traditionalist than Kant, who basically formed his entire philosophy around countering Hume. This guy is a hack fraud
Yep, and both formed conservative ideals. The idea that the Enlightenment is purely left or right is incorrect. The Enlightenment was about the creation of new ideas and humans are two sided creatures, there are so many sides to the Enlightenment it is crazy. There are literally historians who focus purely on this area because it was so important and so vast. Plus these new ideas led to the Revolutions of many states against their “mother country”. The American Revolution wouldn’t have happened without the Enlightenment.
GG Allin The pendulum swings between liberalism and conservatism, you should know this. Smith came up with economic liberalism which is later identified to conservatism and thus brought forth a type of liberalism known as socialism. The criticisms he brought up were embraced by Marx because he saw those as proof as to how capitalism simply shouldn’t be embraced.
@The Icon of Sin but he didn't want to abandon capitalism but reform ir
Hume was part of the conservative enlightenment.
"The abstract Enlightenment philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau is a good example. It quickly pulled down the French state, leading to the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, and the Napoleonic Wars." So you don't actually explain why the philosopher is a good example, or how his views are related to Emmanuel Kant?
Sylvertaco iirc, much of the Declaration of Independence can be recognized from reussaue’s works.
@@bruhwhat7228 - What's your point?
Sylvertaco agreeing with you
So the moral is if you aren't conservative, you're wrong.
Nice. Great message to send. (Sarcasm)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
He isn't even defending conservatism, hes defending blind obedience to the status quo.
@@clairestark9024 basically. The more shot I watch from then the more Lies I see. I remember the American Revolution video where they tried to argue that the French revolution was less important because of the executions when in reality the French Revolution introduced equal rights to men and women of all races when the constitution let slavery exist.
And remember no taxation without representation? After the revolution, they slapped a 30% whiskey tax on the poor people who couldnt vote. Only poor people really drank whiskey while tea was drunken by the upper classes. And when a revolution rose up due to said tax, they were quashed and the rich wagged their fingers and said that they shouldn't revolt.
@@Frame_Late something about praguru weirds me out. I cant tell if they're totally disingenuous or ferociously stupid. I mean when I follow either it leads to the other.
@@clairestark9024 They're definitely disingenuous. Not saying the left isn't, either, but they lie and contradict in every video.
"They also pass over the fact that the father of communism, Karl Marx, saw himself as promoting universal reason as well." Again, someone claiming to promote a true 'universal reason' does not mean the pursuit of universal reason is wrong. it means like all things that people need to approach claims with critical thinking.
His goal was to show why this kind of thinking is dangerous.
@@tepesobrejac4360 - How specific individuals apply concepts does not make the concepts themselves dangerous. If that was the case, most religions and sciences would fall under this case due to individuals using them to commit atrocities.
@@Sylvertaco Except religious atrocities might as well be a slap on the ass compared to Marxist atrocities. I'll take ten different crusades over one failed Communist state any day. Because nine times out of ten, the Crusaders either hug the walls of their fortresses or fail at attacking other countries.
@@HolyknightVader999 - You do realize the economic disasters the crusades were for the countries in Europe and the Middle East from the roaming armies right? Not to mention other atrocities like the Inquisition and bans of religions outside the majority belief, often leading to cruel punishments.
Also, you do realize that most countries in the world, including the US, have a degree of Marxist policies, and have had them for quite a while right?
@@Sylvertaco You truly are a poorly-educated farce. The Crusades caused a rise in trade and economic activity as trade routes followed the marching armies of the Crusaders. The Templars themselves became a center of banking and money-lending for many princely and metropolitan areas of Europe, funding economic growth and laying the foundations for modern banking. Also, the Inquisition's victims are a paltry sum of people who A) could have easily escaped had they told the Inquisitors what they wanted to hear and B) most of whom were tortured because they wanted to die on a hill for something, instead of leaving the country. That, and the Inquisition laid the foundation for the modern-day justice system, with their courts having many features like juries made from good and honest individuals which forms the basis of the modern-day justice system.
Without the Crusades and the Inquisition, you wouldn't have modern banking or civilian courts. What did Marxism give us? Genocides in the tens of millions and a slew of countries that are economic failures. Hence why I'd rather have the Inquisition or the Crusaders take over America rather than Marxist failures. At least they'll be more predictable and easy to manage, as well as being better with economics and justice when compared to modern leftists who treat men like scum in civil courts and who act as if money grows on trees.
Yeah, and that's why the West as a whole are comprised of economically failing nations, while eastern countries like South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan are more economically stable due to them treating Marxism like the plague that it is.
That feel when they rail against Napoleon a week after they made a video praising him.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon
This is what grifting looks like
Long before the enlightenment, St. Thomas Aquainas stated that faith and reason are not opposed to each other. Luther, on the other hand considered reason to be a tool of the devil.
m.ua-cam.com/video/jI1_wctd1_w/v-deo.html
Holy shit I could barely believe what was coming out of this guys mouth at some stages - Jean Jacques Rousseau's philosophy brought down the French state? He is aware what the French state was like at the time of the Revolution right?
He probably thinks 120 Days of Sodom is a romance novel.
Monarchistic where the working class starved and the rich few at the top benefitted? Sounds about perfect for a PragerU speaker.
It’s almost every PragerU speakers desired form of governance with additional state violence and control.
Well I think Rousseau was arguably a failure because while he was great at revolutions he didn’t do a great job building a nation.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”
― Adam Smith
"you know who else liked reason, that's right, HITLER" lmfao
Wrong. Napoleon only took advantage of the Enlightenment with hindsight in order to seize power, which inevitably succeeded (he was promptly promoted to Major General during the War of the First Coalition.
prageru never fails to provide me with comedy
There are many mistakes in this video; but its claims about Napoleon are not part of them.
'Author of the virtue of nationalism.' From this guy's wikipedia - 'Hazony wrote that nationalism uniquely provides "the collective right of a free people to rule themselves"'. Nationalism was literally an enlightenment idea. Along with liberalism it was the biggest threat to the 'conservative European monarchs'.. This video is so dishonest it hurts my brain.
Lmao what a retarded comment. So before the enlightenment period we had no nationalists?
leonard u Not per se. Before the Enlightenment many people followed the feudal system still (sans England and the Dutch) which meant people didn’t care much for the country they lived rather they worried about surviving and working the lands of the nobles that owned it. The people had no say in the government, for example think of the French. 97% of the population had no power, only the clergy and the nobility had. Why would someone have nationalistic pride in something that they had nothing to do with? Those ideas only came after what I like to call the “Era of Revolutions”, like the French and American Revolution. Now I left the British and the Dutch out because they were the first to form nationalist ideas like under Hume because there was no feudal system holding them.
fitzy098 Exactly! Think of people like Spinoza who still follows religion but believed it shouldn’t have dealt with politics. Or even Copernicus who was a religious person but was willing to believe the Bible was wrong! He still believed in the Bible!
Just an average brain dead borderline fascist PragerU video.
@@Cris-ep2sc Your argument is built on a fallacy. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Feudalism in theory can exist simultaneously with a nation (a group of people) wanting the right to self-determination and opposing foreign intervention.
I always thought the enlightenment was a process of people thinking critically about the world, rather than taking it for granted that the preists and wizards, or other old men in dresses and pointy hats, were speaking to God and had the answers.
Not to mention that many enlightenment philosophers were trying to mix their philosophy with religious teachings.
@@redblaze8700 yes the indoctrination of children really works.
Ita also very effective when you embed belief into grief.
Its a great trick to exploit when someone dies.
I have relatives who are over 60 that have yet to grieve for their parents because they are not actually dead......
Yo, Marx’s writings came at least 50 years after the end of the enlightenment.
But his ideas are rooted in insights and beliefs that sprung out of the Enlightenment.
@@Natsumi170 so are people you would politically agree with though? The enlightenment era produced ideas that are massively foundational to a lot of contemporary texts
@@KrankuSama That doesn't automatically make it good
@@Natsumi170 I'm not asking you to like Marxism but advancing human civilization and developing new and exciting philosophies does sound quite good actually.
@@Natsumi170 Doesn’t automatically make it bad either.
No, most progress certainly hasn't come from "conservative traditions". Conservatism is conceptually and effectively antithetical to progress.
Conservatism is basically the opposite of science amd progress
You do not know what Conservatism is then.
@@arikking5893
You do not know what Conservatism is, evidently.
@@nicholasstancel What is conservatism then? And how does it enable progressivism when at least in the west, it consistently fights against it?
@@ibringit987
Conservatism (as conceived by 18th century Anglo-Germanic Empiricists), is from an axiomatic and praxeological perspective, merely a social movement opposed to RAPID or RADICAL social change...
NOT change in general.
Conservatism is only opposed to those "progressive" movements which seek to radically alter socio-economic order in infeasible amounts of time.
Furthermore, Conservatism seeks to implement the necessary paradigmatic changes to human society in an "incrementalist" or gradual process, one that seeks to dialectically promote 'progressive' social/technological change, whilst preserving essential traditions and safeguarding Republican, arch-classical Institutions.
... Given that Conservatism is the only broadly defined political ideology which attempts this dialectic synthesis, is testament to its efficacy and wide public appeal.
Finally, (Classical, Neo-Lib) Conservatives tend to emphasise Pure Empiricism as a mode of Neo-Hegelian pedagogy...
That is the propagation of social and economic measures only verifiable by physical (naturalistic) A Posteriori evidence...
Conservatism explicitly rejects rationalist conjecture, Actualism, Idealist psychology, and humanist convention.
Conservatism also places a strong emphasis on Neo-Kantian Deontological virtue ethics, that which rely on action contemporaneous evaluation of a categorical action or imperative, thus judging its moral worth based upon an essentialist conception of the action alone...
NOT what the action's intended consequences were supposed to be, as you Leftists insist...
... The simple fact that you so willingly conflate Conservatism as the antithetical movement to transcendental progress, (both scientific & social) directly indicates that you do not understand what Conservatism actual is or entails...
You have likely never invested time in trying to fully comprehend Conservative ethos or philosophy, only subscribing to whichever satirized caricature of Conservative ideals you encountered on a college campus.
If you genuinely believe that Conservatism is an ideology which serves to stifle "progress" or embody the diametrical antithesis of scientific development, than you are simply WRONG.
No different than if you asserted the sky was purple, or that heliocentrism is a farce.
David Hume was an Atheist who believed that feelings don’t care about your facts.
Ben Shapiro leaves the chat.
Kant derived many of his ideas from Hume hence „A Critique of Pure Reason.“
I don’t quite get the persistent anti-Kantianism by conservatives except the fact that Kant was against lying.
"The greatest catastrophes of modernity were engineered by individuals who claimed to be exercising reason."
Yes. The danger of such a claim is that it tends to smite every opposition as irrational.
christina listerina I think we can call it “good ideals” in their point of view!
I think it's ridiculous to imply that communism, Nazism, socialism, feminism, and environmentalism all spawned from the same toxic sludge. Feminism was a product of the Enlightenment, while those other four are ultimately rooted in the "anti-enlightened" Romantic movement of the early nineteenth century. (And the Romantic period was not necessarily bad. What, shall we burn all of Lord Byron's poems because Nietzsche perverted him and then Hitler perverted Nietzsche?) Not to mention that those five have NOT proven to be compatible at various times in modern history. The Soviet Union was extremely anti-environmentalist, the Nazis were stridently anti-feminist, etc.
Especially individuals that shout out *"FaCtS!"* and *"LoGiC!"* even if they are lacking on both of those.
Probably, and ""The greatest catastrophes of" premodernity "were engineered by individuals who claimed to be exercising" the will of God. Religion was probably a fundamental force in creating and maintaining civilization up to that point, and may still be helpful today. But blaming reason for the catastrophes of bad reasoning is like blaming religion for the catastrophes of bad religions. Keep your religion if you think you need it, but not everyone needs to make your choice.
I always thought that the enlightenment was more about the foundations of modern day science than political theory, also not every idea of the time was necessarily enlightened per say
per se not per say...just fyi probably just a typo.
Sir Francis Bacon who is credited with the scientific method predated the 18th century enlightenment. And he was inspired by pioneer scientists/natural philosophers such as Copernicus centries before him.
Modern science as well as the university has its roots in the High Middle Ages (11-12 centuries), coming into fuller flower in the Reformation. Faith seeking understanding/thinking God's thoughts after Him (Biblical revelation as the foundation for observation and experimentation) is really the foundation for truth and knowledge...something much of the enlightenment philosophy actually worked to undermine.
I personally thought that the enlightenment was more about helping show that we should be skeptical, not to believe everything we are told about the world and was more about conservative ideals
@@Shabeck100 Yeah, that's why every scientist never refers to God or claims his ideas came from God in all the millions of pages of peer-reviewed scientific literature...
"Fascism is the belief in human inequality"
- Orwell
In case any die-hard conservatives read this comment, this is basically why the Left calls literally everyone who has ideas about ethnostates or race realism or any of that, a fascist. This is why many popular voices in the "skeptic" community and conservative Right on UA-cam are deemed to be monstrously nazistic. For the layman, this applies to every single person who says, "we need more white babies in America." Fascists, all of them. And they don't even know it most times.
Human inequality is the state of nature. Human equality only exists in the spiritual realm where God created all human souls in His image, but in the material world, some people are stronger, faster, smarter, more attractive, or more charming and persuasive than others. Inequality is the state of nature; human "equality" is a myth that only comes real when one considers the spiritual.
@The Icon of Sin Fascism is merely an emergency government arrangement to fix things under the rule of an absolute dictator. In peaceful times, fascist nations have no reason to keep on going the way they do.
@HolyknightVader999 nope. That's simply not what fascism means. Fascism is the idea that there is a group of people that deserve to be on top of all hierarchies by any means necessary to bring back some glory that existed in a mythological past, but was lost because of equality. It completely rejects the enlightment.
It's totalitarian by nature, since a social order in which a lot of people suffer is very unstable unless the state has control over people's lives. However the social order can be achieved democratically, if the conditions are given.
@@matiasgarciacasas558 Wrong again. Fascism is practically socialism with a cross and a flag for ease of digestion. Looking at the Nazis' agenda, outside of the racial stuff, many of their points were points made by other socialist countries. Welfare, controlling business and capital, and making the state the ultimate power in the land, all of these are part of their ideology. Other fascists like Franco and Mussolini didn't have much racial ideology, and other fascists like the dictatorship in Portugal openly despised Hitler's racial theories and openly allowed Jews to walk in Portugal while the Jews in Poland and Germany were being turned into dust.
Hazony: How many fallacies do you want in your video, Dennis?
Prager: Yes.
Christian men were the backbone of renaissance science. Their fascination with our creator drove them to learn about the mysteries of His creation (the universe).
The arabics also contributed to renaissance science with their knowledge of alchemy
Well obviously because they were the only persons that received an education. At this time education was meant for clergy.
Oraction
False. Universities were not exclusive to Christians. They were open to anyone who could afford to attend and was qualified (just like now).
And what about Willy Shakespeare, the closet homosexual who in his works almost forget god except for the use of anecdotes and some odther phrases
Nini Pins
What about him?
Let's overlook the fact that before the Napoleonic War there was the 30 Years War, which was more contained (being focused in Germany) at a time when there was less people and killed more people which was motivated by religion and the politics of traditional monarchists. Napoleon did nothing that was bad that the Europeans were not already doing and instituted genuine reforms like making Jews citizens or marginalizing nobles, which were often rolled back after his fall.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”..Edmund Burke..who was a political wig
@Richard Fox That's what the Constitution and 'checks and balances' are for. I was told that, after a discussion of whether people were 'good' or 'bad,' the person who maintained that humanity is fundamentally good locked his car. 'Why did you do that if you think people are good?' his friend asked. Smiling, he replied, 'That's just to keep them that way.' We humans know what 'good' is (Aristotle). One important job of ours is to keep each other that way.
....You mean a Whig (British Whig, of course)?
Wasn't that Stuart Mill? I could've sworn it was a Mill quote.
blackquiver m.ua-cam.com/video/jI1_wctd1_w/v-deo.html
Burke also believed that the US shouldn't be independent.
Hold up literally last week they were just praising Napoleon and now they say that he was wrong when before defending him
Daniel Carrasco m.ua-cam.com/video/jI1_wctd1_w/v-deo.html
Kant was not part of the enlightenment. He was the one that ended it and ushered in romanticism. Even Kant said "I had to limit reason to make room for faith'. This is not an anti-'faith and tradition' individual. He was an anti-reason individual. He was the one that developed an extensive philosophical framework as to why our senses cannot see reality and at that point, reason became subjective (took the subjective side in the object/subject distinction).
"The Enlightenment’s critics, including John Selden, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke" Being critics of 'The Enlightenment' is not an apropriate phrasing, as most people see these thinkers being able to spread their ideas as a byproduct of the Enlightenment. What you mean to say is they were critical of the concept of progressive movements that sought to make radical changes to society, IE the basis for most conservative positions.
Heck Hume and Smith were butt-buddies with the Enlightenment. Also, Selden died before the Enlightenment even happened.
@@GiordanDiodato Glad to see another critic of the video, because that first part was a quote from the video.
Very well put.
Someone who actually understands Conservatism and characterises it properly.
@@Sylvertaco also Burke hated the idea of the US being independent lol
i didn't know that they literally rejected the enlightenment holy shit
It is true that the Anglo-American system of government goes back to traditional Germanic and Saxon law, not the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment thinkers only became popular long after they died.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, among others, claimed the American revolution was essentially about English men claiming their ancestral rights. Jefferson, notably, wanted the mythical founders of England, Hengist and Horsa, on one side of the Seal of the United States because our "system of government," derived from them. That is, the ancient Germans had a deliberative process of self-governance, including the election of kings, or their rule by consent of the tribes, and a parliamentary system in the form of the "Thing."
They felt that things began to go wrong with the Normam invasion, who imported a feudal system to England.
@@landofthesilverpath5823 shut up communist
@@landofthesilverpath5823 freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc are all part of the enlightenment ideas.. go to gu*llotine for not supporting the republic and its incorruptible virtues of liberty enough times!
@@democracyisnon-negociable3819 those ideas emerged because of people recognized the need for ecumenicalism. It's 100% tied to the experiences of the wars of religions due to schism in the church. If people have the freedom to express whichever denomination they want, there is no need to fight over which church is the state church.
But the idea of political freedom and deliberation among a people and rights of due process goes back further to antiquity and is the basis of anglo saxon, and therefore, American law. The magna carte predates the protestant revolutions.
So freedom of speech is a relic of the Enlightenment understanding of how to deal with the wars of religion, but political freedom and our way of government goes back further.
An example of this is the fact that many Americam states had literal state religions. New Jersey was practically founded as a theocracy and only protestants could hold office until the early 19th centuries. In connecticut, the congregational church was controlled and supported by the state government-- a new town had to have a church in order to be chartered by the government and attending Sunday services was mandatory. But the political structure we have today was largely there.
@@landofthesilverpath5823 To claim that modern Common Law used in the Anglosphere is the same as Common law used in medieval England is one of the dumbest and intellectually dishonest things I’ve read so far.
All civilizations are thousands of years old. Doesn’t change the fact that they changed drastically over those thousands of years, or that modern society was shaped in almost every way by the enlightenment.
3:20 _"The greatest catastrophes of modernity were engineered by individuals who claimed to be exercising reason."_
Man, that's seriously profound statement!
Let me illustrate how trivial and unprofound that is:
"The greatest achievements in modern medicine were engineered by individuals who claimed to be exercising reason"
Get it?
Jacob Frank came out of the Haskalah movement.
L.E.V.I it only sounds unprofound because you took a discussion about society and redirected it to something unrelated to the topic.
In other words, apples to oranges
@@justanotherchannelonyoutub126 What he said does makes sense because the advancement of technology and knowledge is the backbone of social progress.
@@levi5073 The statement you presented is not comparable to the original statement, a more comparable statement would be:
*The most destructive acts of evil are motivated by good intentions*
The Enlightenment was a death kneel for theocracies.
Vorse_Raider m.ua-cam.com/video/jI1_wctd1_w/v-deo.html
Which is why PragerU absolutely hates it
And the rise of modern capitalism which basically treats the human being as if he or she was a number on a spreadsheet.
Unless you were trying to make some kind of subtle pun about the relation between religion and kneeling (e.g., "For to Me every knee will bend, and every tongue will swear," Isaiah 45:23), the word you wanted was "knell."
@Friedrich Leopold II von Hohenzollern Serfdom solved that problem. Lazy bums want to eat? Let them farm the food.
''return to monke'' - PragerU
😂😂😂
PragerU is the very definition of doublethink to the average viewer.
Edit: At least the one who already has a freaking Brain.
BqpahDoes Stuff that’s what I thought until I realized prageru just a platform for independent people to express their views. So some of the people might have views a little different than others
Not an argument.
Hey are you a follower of tinfoil hat Samantha Bee from Comedy Central?
Your idea of Pergeru is the same of those who know nothing about PregerU : They actually are a huge , very diverse platform where a large group of intellectuals present short videos about any given subject under the sun , and can differ among themselves. Something UNLIKE what we can find in leftist TV, and colleges nowadays. Besides, presenting all that Napoleon did for the French is in no way an act of "praising" him, it's an objective view that doesn't elevate him as a George Washington of the French, but gives him the credit for whatever he actually did( like what many emperors in ancient history get credit for without making them sinless or perfect ). I am not a fan of him, and there is no way we can find the PregerU video about him like a praise that will see him as a "hero" that will contrast the view of the philosophy that influenced him presented in this video as a contradiction within PregerU as a platform . Besides all this , and for your information, PregerU is not for the average viewer ( assuming that means ppl who don't think for themselves ) for that you have The Young Turks, Secular Talk, The Packman Show, The Sam Seder Show and the likes. Right there you can find the most unfunded , void of thoughts, disconnected from reality nonsense you could ever find in a free society. They are necessary not just to help independent thinkers to grow by seeing "the other side" of the coin; but also to illustrate how free we are in a Republic that embraces capitalism and freedom of expression: they freely express, criticize , and live in complete opposition to the system that enables them to be as free as they are, and this thanks to the Declaration of Independence , constitution, and values they reject. It's a beauty. Fare well in whatever you do. You are free to do that, and PregerU will continue to show you ( unlike "college" and their nonsense about gender studies) the sausage is made.
@The Icon of Sin Ok you can fact check them yourself. Like the the question I posted below.
PragerU: Enlightenment brought religious conservatism
Me: nope, it was classical liberalism, which everyone in modern society abandoned, both the left and the right
So true! Without the enlightenment era (even with all its shortcomings) this very clip would never have been made.
The Enlightenment period was important as you said! Many new ideas, however crazy were brought which brought on the ideas such as capitalism and people having a say in the state. Their cherished capitalism came from the Enlightenment because of the hate for absolutist rulers.
I don't think it's fair to say "classical liberalism" was abandoned since it directly influenced philosophies that came afterward. Elements of it can still be seen in modern philosophy.
samiamrg7 That’s fair. Many of the famous philosophes that came afterward and advanced the belief system were influenced by people before them, like how Rousseau was influenced by Locke. While Locke was (somehow) influenced by Hobbes. They were all influenced by someone before into making their own theories, so the echoes can still be found today.
Rousseau brought down the french state? What about the crippling economy, the fact that french people didnt have what to eat and were starting while the monarchy was living în luxury and ignorant of People s pain. Reactionaries always paint a world where material conditions do not exist, as only ideas are driving things around. To give an example, many Times i might watch a movie that makes me angry about the world, but being Lucky and having all my material desires met, my need to act on that anger is greatly diminshed. On the other hand, if I were broke and barely had what to eat, Who knows what i would think about really doing
They're probably going to say that it was something related with God, right?? 🤷🏽
Since the Enlightenment, in the great tension between rationalism (how we would like things to be so they make sense to us) and empiricism (how things are), we have been blaming the world for not fitting the beds of “rational” models, have tried to change humans to fit technology, fudged our ethics to fit our needs for employment, asked economic life to fit the theories of economists, and asked human life to squeeze into some narrative.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms
I disagree with this statement at completely. The battle between rationalism and empiricism has been a dominant divide long before the enlightenment, and was first recorded in ancient greece. Plato and Aristotle were the founders of western rationalism (based on Socrates), and were sharply critiqued by other greek schools of thought like Epicureanism and Cynicism, which were proto-empiricist. The Catholic church adopted neo- Platonic/Aristotelian thought (thanks to Augustine) because its epistomology fit with the early dogma of revealed grace, and largely ignored empirical thinkers (even demonizing Epicurus). The enlightenment was a re-examination of this tradition, this time without theology, while opponents like Hume and other romantics challenged the wave of revived rationalism with the same empirical questions. This is not an enlightenment problem it is an issue inherent in western philosphical tradition since ancient times.
@@iannordin5250 Yeah, if you check out the ancient greeks, they are asking themselves what knowledge is etc. Totally postmodernism!
Also, Platon could write beautifully.
Thumbnail: The Death Star is part of the Enlightenment!?!?!?!
😅I was a little confused but I got it.
It makes sense if you think about it, people who believe that theirs is the one true good ideology generally use force to impose it on others(cough cough antifa cough). What's more forceful than a death star?
Mathew Reckamp the number of groups (especially conservative ones like alt right or kkk) that you skipped over just to shoehorn antifa into that comment is ridiculous.
@@josephbradley2575 the kkk and other "alt-right" groups such as white nationalists are actually left wing groups. Seriously, if you ever listened to Richard Spencer talking then you'd know that the only difference between him and Burney Sanders is that he wants to exclude black and brown people from the welfare system.
@@josephbradley2575 Antifa is the largest group of them all
Enlightenment- *based on the ideals that man should not be governed by faith*
PragerU- *heavy breathing*
Many good ideas, but I think you misinterpret Enlightenment thinkers. Kant, after all, wrote the Critique of Pure Reason, and was hardly dogmatic in his search for solid principles of philosophy. He showed that rational thought was limited, that some very important questions had no final answers at all. Kant followed in the tradition of Hume. Kant also tried to find a principle of morality which wouldn't rest solely on religious dogma, but basically came up with a variant of the golden rule.
I tried, but I just Kant get into it. :)
I can't agree with Kant or you. The ten commandments and following Jesus Christ, in doing the right thing for the right reason, is morality so kant made a pitiful attempt to redefine morality but is just his attempt to understand God.
They completely misrepresented Kant's philosophy in a suggestive way, even linking him to Marx. As a Kantianist I can only contemn Marx. PragerU, whose videos I have watched for years now, most of the time agreeing with them, now chose to lump Kant with Marx together, only because you can use Kant's philosophy to criticize religion. (Kant however was Christian and believed that God is the perfect Good.) Kant made me realize that leftism is wrong, so I stopped being a leftist and became conservative. American conservatives are often so toxic because they have such a stupid religious agenda. Here in Germany, it isn't rare to be an atheist conservative, lol.
As a Kantianist I cannot tolerate that you called the Categorical Imperative a variant of the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is egotistic, hedonistic and utilitarian in nature. The Categorical Imperative forces you to go against your wishes and against everyone's wishes, if it is morally correct. The CI operates with reason and forbids you actions that are fallacies if universalized, the GR wants you to think about what is the best for you.
@@jayferguson9968
>plays rimshot
I don't disagree, but obviously it's hard to summarize philosophical history in a 5 minute video. In watching other recent commentaries on the Enlightenment, I think what they may be trying to say is that after reviewing the past 100 years, we can easily observe that the idea that pure reason will lead us to the best results for humanity is ridiculous. Jordan Peterson commented in one of his recent lectures that the majority of modern technology has either come from the West or from highly westernized countries. And as much as some may try to disconnect the West from Judeo-Christian values, you can't. Those values took centuries to develop within the culture, are written into the very laws that govern us and have become part of the way we think whether we are religious or not.
These new attempts in western culture to pretend that a new generation of thinkers can get socialism right this time around is just laughable.
Didn't the enlightenment inspire, you know...
THE FOUNDING FATHERS??
What was the enlightenment, watch crash course. You want hear a Boomer completely misunderstand philosophy, enjoy.
Well John Green is a progressive and the Enlightenment was liberal, so understandably he likes it, but doesn't think it went far enough.
You should watch both- the more perspectives the better.
@@jlupus8804 PragerU doesn't have perspective, it just lies. Literal lies and misinformation, you shouldn't take anything they try to push as anything more than bias confirmation for conservatives
@@roosterssaloon You can say that about Crash Course too. "The Green Brothers don't have perspective, they just lie. Literal lies and misinformation, you shouldn't take anything they try to push as anything more than bias confirmation for SJWs".
@@jlupus8804 you can say that, but you'd be lying too. Especially in this video, because they literally lie about HISTORICAL facts, it's so telling you'd defend ignorance LOL
PragerU: "actually since 99% of people a few hundred years ago would be considered conservative today, WE should actually get all the credit for improvements in society"
firudu lol so true it’s like when people say Nazis were socialist lol m.ua-cam.com/video/jI1_wctd1_w/v-deo.html
Reason is not following what's in your head.
Reason is to prove that something works using scientific method and iteration.
Thank you. Much needed comment.
@Sheldon Cooper what does this theory have to do with what I said?
@@iaroslavtitov2270 Reason is basically what is in your head (logic) when it is applied to reality.
Objectively the ideas either succeed or fail regardless of our emotions or revelations.
Science is just the systemization of the process of reason.
Dostoyevsky's "Devils" is good info regarding revolution
Also E. Michael Jones and father Barruel
A very good read that is.
Dostoevsky is simply a mentally inferior person who was imposed by Russian propaganda.
And Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You" is better
You do realize the founding fathers were inspired by The Enlightenment right........
Which can be questionable. Yes left wing is trash and so is the enlightenment
The new term is “ WOKE”
Where Kant really gets it wrong is the "let go of the past" part. Without the past you've got no vantage point nor a track record of what works and what doesn't. The fact that modern colleges don't note that seriously discredit their status as institutions of "higher learning".
Bahahahahahaha the irony that you think it is more woke to believe in ancient fairy tales.
Can even a single one of you explain how you combine the concept of God creating Adam and Eve with the theory of evolution completely decimating this story? The ground that has been lost by your primitive religions will never be gained back, sorry.
@@ajnode maybe the gods under YWHY's(is that how his name is written?) leadership made Adam and Eve the first civilized humans, who could read and write. The apple was ambition, and it caused them to lead their tribe to many wars. And Methuselah probably lived 119 years. Just to be clear, I'm an Omnist. I believe in all religions, and atheism, plus my own stuff sprinkled in.
Ivan the Great 2.0 The Universe is Infinite and this includes all Truth and Fiction. So it’s all true and all false. History is “His Story”, which is why we keep hearing about a handful of people instead of 8 billion stories.
Yes. It seems there was a need to replace the term "enlightened" with something less literate to raise popularity among the many, that without the slightest analysis, impulsively buy into fashionable stupid-speak. It seems our new "woke" is therefore roughly translated as bamboozled. Fake enlightenment grounded on the most superficial of intellectual foundations.
Thomas Aquinas is my homeboy.
The man that brought Aristotle back into the discussion of reason.
@@Avidcomp - "Watch yo mouf".
"I'm just talking about reason."
Kant was wrong on many levels, but the first is one answer. Take a swimmer. Some people swim faster in backstroke, others in butterfly. There is no one answer. The universe could have began out of nothing, or out of a collapsed pre universe, or one of over 300 million gods in human religions alone. A country sometimes works best with monarchy, or republicanism, or democracy, or Technocracy, or socialism, depending on the situation. Some people work long hours, other short ones, and in both cases, both can produce great results. It's like when Cara asked "is four a lot" and the doctor said "depends on the context". No one explanation, method, ideology, plan, or path, will always work as intended for everyone.
The guy that supported the abortion of boys up to 3rd month of pregnancy and the abortion of girls up to 6th?
Ok...
@@zacnieprawisz9171 - Care to cite your source?
Remember kids, change that we don’t like = bad
anything that supports our interests, despite the detriments on countless others = good
PragerU loathes the scientific method, i see
"Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Winston Churchill
Problem is, too many are pathetically clueless about history and will drag the rest of us into the ignorant abyss.
If all people take a pledge to think critically, even the most well known demagogues could not gain traction.
Did your prior view on the enlightenment line up exactly with this video before watching?
Don't let PragerU drag you into the abyss.
I’m torn on this video. I love the details about how great ideas existed before the foundation of America but have to disagree that it was common sense that was really what we should credit. The truth is it was the Protestant Movement that should get the lions share of the credit. Only by creating a safe space for ideas to exist outside of the Roman Church allowed for the idea a freedom to become a reality.
Common sense also doesn't exist. If it's common, then why do most people not have it.
Studd Muffin Not absolutely but many in the Roman Church discouraged open thinking at all levels. Galileo and Martin Luther both are pretty good examples of that.
Read: Protestants: The Faith That Made the Modern World
by Alec Ryrie | Apr 4, 2017, Prager featured this author on one of his radio broadcasts.
@Studd Muffin your comment works more in favor of op than yourself. the "insult" of the pope revolved around their disagreement of geocentrism in the first place.
Luther's quote also supports OP because he himself was a devout catholic as well his 95 theses (which I assume he was meaning to reference) were widely regarded as heresy.
ah yes, the famously free thinking Protestant movement that tolerated so many other people's opinions that they split into dozens of different churches
Incredible. Literally everything you just said was factually and morally wrong
If you submitted this as a project in a high school level history class you would probably fail that class
That's every Prager U video, honestly.
I thought napoleon was the good guy 😁
PragerU not being ideologically consistent? Imagine my shock
@@artirony410 Haha yeah it completely goes against the video they recently made on Napoleon
they never said he was a good guy🤦♂️they just pointed out to the things about him that we didn‘t know
@@buggydclown7724 Yes they did in a way that glorified hes actions and made him look like the good guy.
Yasser,beddouch Puddleglum glorified his actions? there is no glorification at all they simply stated the facts
Guys, Ben Shapiro claims to use reason, but look! Hitler and Marx claimed to use reason, Ben Shapiro owned.
Reject modernity, embrace monarchy.
So Enlightenment wasn’t a big deal?
Science bad. Religion good
Got it.
Yep monarchs and churches are the only ones who can employ scientists. In fact they were the best at it. I saw it online, so it must be true.
@el the video did xd
@el 1:10
@el hahaha what are you even talking about, I literally do not understand what you meant by this
@el hmm okay, I think im starting to get your point, can u elaborate?
This person is all mixed up in his head. To begin with, religious wars brought the most victims. And to compare the creator of the new Europe Napoleon with the Communists is not even absurdity is a crime.
Reason is independent of experience? what? reason isn't some thing in a void or something floating in the nether, It REQUIRES experience to even apply. Reason is fallible because humans are fallible, reason is the product of humans.
I think you would have to try pretty hard to find someone who has a worse understanding of the Enlightenment...
Anyone who wants to seriously examine the legacy of the Enlightenment should look at the work of Alan Charles Kors, a conservative and a real scholar. Kors would find the argument in this video ridiculous. For example, Hume was not a traditionalist - he was an extreme skeptic.
Kors has published many books, but his most accessible works are audio/visual courses from The Teaching Company. They are superb and will radically alter your glib assumptions about history.
PragerU is pure propaganda of the worst kind. But Kors shows that one can be a conservative without being an utter fool.
“Most of the progress we’ve made comes from conservative traditions openly sceptical of human reason.” Noted Socialist Albert Einstein may disagree with this.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
m.ua-cam.com/video/jI1_wctd1_w/v-deo.html
Smart people have dumb ideas sometimes.
True or False?
I have a feeling Mr Peterson would have a problem with the way it was phrased 'overthrowing religion and dogma'
PragerU: Us conservatives believe in facts and logic while the left is irrational. Also morality is objective and it's our morality.
Also PragerU: Reason and search for objective truth are bad because Napoleon, Marx, and Hitler also used reason and objective truth.
PragerU is not a person.
@@tadm123 I never said they were. I'm just saying that PragerU as an institution is contradicting itself.
PragerU is a platform for different speakers where they say different opinions (of course on the right side of the spectrum since it’s conservative primarily). No contradiction here unless it’s the opinion from a single person itself (Dennis Prager) in his ‘firechat talks’
@@tadm123 it seems they are just a conservative propaganda site that posts anything which contradicts mainstream ideas. Even if it is completely wrong and backwards. In this case they are trying to rewrite history where the monarchists and theocrats were correct and everybody else is wrong. And also somehow the US was not founded on enlightenment ideas.
What was the Enlightenment? Bad stuff. Don't ask questions. Don't get enlightened. Keep with the herd, sheep.
Yeah I’m not gonna take anything this guys says seriously, he wrote a book called “the virtues of Nationalism”
PragerU literally spent last week’s video praising Napoleon and now they’re... well...
It’s like PragerU is getting more and more classically conservative
Now Africans need enlightenment more than Ever!
Every continent has had empires having sort of rise in that aspect and fall. It goes around as time goes by
Man destroying man ,that's about the only inligtment we are seeing today.
@@michaeloluokun9488 africans will never go through enlightenment if they are content on grifting everyone they encounter africans need repatriation
@@NwoDispatcher I fear for your historical knowledge.
There is nothing wrong with trying new things, just as long as you make sure it doesn't move too far too fast.
Except there's nothing new. With a quick glance on history you'd find not only that things we're exploring had been explored but they have been a plague to humanity for as long as it existed.
If the people you try it on are unaware, then yes, the kids something wrong with it
The burden of proof is always on the shoulders of those who are advocating change. And the more radical the change, the greater the burden of proof.
“Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”
@@justanotherchannelonyoutub126 Those who reject history or re-write it are doomed to repeat it at their own risk of loss.
Common sense as an ideology-> "our prejudices are more sensible than yours"
Interesting video. I never posited that the Founders created their own forms of government, and instead worked to attempt to improve the over 700 years of tyrannical behaviors by other nations prior to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. This could be construed as enlightened, however, their intention was to insistently preserve the individual rights of the people and strive to give them a greater voice than Government.
Our government of D.C, was never intended to be a permanent living and congregational space for our representatives, rather they were supposed to remain in their home districts so they'd be closer to the ear of their population. This idea was never passed, and as a result, the people are dismissed to the arrogance of their representatives.
The founders were 'enlightened' because of historical experiences of the people, they collected from Rome, Greece, France, Italy, and England, to name a few.
Their hope, was the people of this country to NOT repeat the mistakes of the past foreign historical governments.
If this does not qualify our founders to something other than just liberators from an oppressive England, I dont know what to tell ya.
PragerU: 3:18
UA-cam: *Restricted*
Sad but probably true
😂 😂 😂 😂
Vid got restricted as soon as the algorithm heard Kant's name get pronounced
You mean demonitised, which would matter because prageru gets millions from their funders(billionaires).
I am yet to read about or meet a proponent of the enlightenment who gives credit only to the enlightenment ideas of the seventeenth and eighteenth century for all of modern science, medicine, political freedom and market economies. This is the first time I have heard that such a person exists and I find it hard to believe. Many enlightenment thinkers were familiar with ideas from Socrates, Epicurus, Aristotle and other great classical thinkers, so the starting premise of this video seems to be a straw man. No body can deny that there were free thinkers who made significant contributions to political freedom before the enlightenment, but most of the progress in modern science, medicine and market economies was made subsequent to the enlightenment.
The speaker repeated the enlightenment's emphasis on reason and mentioned some of the terrible things that were done by some historical figures who were convinced that their actions were reasonable and tried to use that to criticize the enlightenment. Of course, many crimes have been committed in the name of reason, but that is a problem with human nature and our tendency to rationalise illogical beliefs and actions. The enlightenment thinkers were aware that our reasoning abilities were prone to error, so they encouraged open debate and the scientific method to refine our reason. These thinkers also had some illogical ideas, held ridiculous beliefs, and some may have engaged in despicable acts, but one thing they all emphasized is that all men should think for themselves and apply reason in understanding the world, and not allow the traditions of their fathers, which like them were prone to errors, dictate their lives. They encouraged others to extend their insights beyond the traditions of their ancestors.
The speaker made it look like all enlightenment thinkers proposed human reason at the expense of history, tradition and experience. Most of them were definitely against tradition, but I think many of them were in support of learning from history and experience.
In the end the speaker attempted to credit conservatism, rather than the enlightenment, for most of human progress. While I do see some influence of conservative thought on free market economies and political freedom, I don't see a cause and effect relationship with modern science and medicine. The speaker obviously revealed his bias against the enlightenment and I hope he overcomes it and gives the enlightenment the credit it deserves.
PragerU would have been fighting with the red coats in the American revolution.
I mean, so would have I.
But that's because I'm Canadian and the American revolution was unjustified
For the record, one of Kant's most important works was called the Critique of Pure Reason. He was not a strict rationalist. He very much thought that pure reason had its limits. Regardless if this video has adequately demonstrated the problems of rationalism (it hasn't), I see no reason to associate Kant with the position that reason, completely independent of experience, is infallible.
The Renaissance, a rediscovery of the philosophy and science from the ancient world, led to the enlightenment. So yes these ideas were around before the enlightenment.
In school they taught us how the enlightenment was the best thing ever because secularism helped us advance. Didnt believe it. Thanks for reassuring me
They stored it, we advanced it
"openly skeptical of human reason"
So you are just propaganda
I don’t know how they managed to get a fact wrong every half a second but I guess they did
Normally I tend to agree with Prager U on most subjects, but this one I have some issues with.
Yes, there were indeed fundamentals of The Enlightenment growing in Europe long before Kant. Nonetheless, Kant was the first person to pull it all together and call it The Enlightenment. No one is saying that he pulled it all out of his ass.
All those ideas that led to the Enlightenment, inspired the best aspects of Western Civilization, including and especially the reverence for REASON as man’s most powerful capacity. Our ability to reason is what truly separates us from animals.
This all of course inspired the brilliant minds who were the founders of The United States. No one is saying that our Constitution and Declaration of Independence are utterly original, but they are products of the Age of Enlightenment created by people we wouldn’t have called conservatives back then, but we would have called them liberals. Classical liberals in today’s parlance. Strangely classical liberalism closely resembles conservatism or libertarianism today.
I believe that Prager University is concerned with the discussion of The Enlightenment leaving out all aspects of God and Morality whereas I clearly see that they are there. The founders were deists. Christian mostly and while their passion for reason might have called into question some aspects of the Bible, it seems to me they used reason to support the existence of God in order to support the ideas of natural rights and property rights.
Today postmodernists seek to rip apart every aspect of Western Civilization and replace other, with complete absurdities including and especially the idea of God as our primary moral compass.
But what do I know. I’m just a caveman engineer.
#embraceTheEnlightenment
i never knew PragerU were postmodernists
They are PRE-modernists.
They think the dark ages got a bad wrap.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 i never knew someone could be both premodernist and postmodernist
Bye the way guys. If you haven't understood it yeet let me enlighten you.😂
This is a channel that can be a bit manipulating and it might use words and descriptions that might not tell the howl story.
This can make this "educational" channel less reliable and you should at least be doing a bit research by yourself.
This is also important for most political channel and you should always be sceptical.
I've just noticed that this channel dose ofte l leaves out important information.
PS. To be critical you have to be able to see things from more than one point of viwe so plz try to watch some more liberal channel's too.
The Golden Twig 111 m.ua-cam.com/video/jI1_wctd1_w/v-deo.html
Wait a minute. You're using, f...f...FACTS? Oh my god you are literally the toxic leftist reincarnation of Hitler *REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE*