Hi Nikola, WOW! I loved this battle of idealist v. Stoic realist. Dr. Pigliucci has challenged me more than any of your other interviewees, and for that I am grateful. Pigliucci's is the kind of tough love I need if I am going to grow in my thinking. It looks to me as if he challenged you, too--I sensed a bit of defensiveness on your part. But he pressed on anyway, and that was good to see. I side with you in wanting some way to take Aurelean/Stoic virtue(s) all the way to the Platonic (NOT Socratic!) Philosopher King. You gave two examples of exemplary philosopher kings, both of whom I admire (I add a third: Greta). But both of your examples were assassinated, and I think this gets to the root of the practical problem in which Dr. Pigliucci is very much grounded, but wasn't actually mentioned during your interview: the undeniable call of the lizard brain. How do you resolve selfishness v. altruism so that sufficient numbers of children (taught virtue from 3 yrs old, as MP recommended) don't relapse or get lost in the system and decide to emulate Genghis Khan or Josef Stalin? "I alone can solve the problem," the orange dictator said in 2016 when he was running for President. People believed him. They believed HE was the philosopher king. And that's the problem, isn't it? Trump lacked virtue, his followers definitely lacked virtue, and that's what we get. I also believe with you, Nikola, that as your example Robert McKee said, he cannot teach anyone how to write. When people ask me how they can write and publish a book, I tell them I can't help them. I tell them to not even try to write. McKee is being nice, while my words are not so nice, but we say the same thing: If you really want to write, you'll do it. You'll find a way. It seems to me McKee is appealing to the faculty of desire. If you have the will to write, you will. He dangles the carrot, and maybe that works. Maybe that's why his students have enjoyed unequaled success. He is more of a coach than a teacher in that regard, perhaps. Two more points. Plato is NOT Socrates, and so the Socratic refrain that he did not teach anything is perhaps an unguarded faithful quote that somehow made it through Plato's heavy editing and pushing of Socrates into some ideal that he never was, but also Socrates was not likely to have developed the grand, ideal schemes that Plato articulated, and therefore was less likely to have guided his students to some pre-set conclusion, as MP argued. Finally, though, I would LOVE to hear Dr. Pigliucci's rebuttal to any of these points; based on the interview, I am sure he would have some quite stunning counterpoints and could leave me more than a little humbled. This guy is fantastic. More, please!!! PM 2022
Happy you enjoyed it, my friend. If you want more of Massimo, is it correct to presume you have already seen our previous interview that I recorded a couple of years ago with him? www.singularityweblog.com/massimo-pigliucci/
@@SingularityFM perhaps Pigliucci's new story to rule them all is the story of climate change apocalypse. Just as the cold war story united citizens of the USA, our opposition to climate change is intended to unite the world
@@haraldwolte3745 A story that works is viral. It is popular. It is contagious. It spreads like a virus and sneezers who hear it for the first time can't wait to turn around and share it with someone else. So, clearly, at least in its current version, Climate Change doesn't work that well and is clearly not a story we are uniting around. If it were we'd be taking more consistent and coherent action. Alas we're not.
@@SingularityFM true, but I'm not suggesting that it is a good story or the one we need. I'm suggesting that the huge polarization and emotion surrounding climate change could be because some people are attempting to use it as a secular apocalyptic story to unite us around.
OH! I forgot to add the essential, the last point about trans-humanism. It's the people whose lizard brain leads them--the people like Kurzweil and Musk and Trump and Pol Pot--who advocate most energetically for trans-human development or AI hegemony. Well screw that. I actually didn't know until this interview that you and I stand together on the issue. Trans-humanism can only lead to the death of most or all of us, and probably also the death of our planet. I'm writing about that right now, in my sci-fi manuscript, TRINITY. In rough draft I actually had a character named Langzeit (you'll figure it out), over 100 years old (kept alive by his vitamin cocktails), who succeeded in adding cyber enhancements to his brain. But of course AI was already in charge, and could gain intelligence far faster than Langzeit and his gang. So Langzeit goes in for a 5th round of enhancements and the AI overlords kill him, and everyone else with cyber implants. Eliminating potential competition, as it were. My novel ends when a situation arises allowing compassion to rule humanity. The exemplar is not anyone we know, but a woman 16,000 years ago who risked her life to save a dog who lived with an enemy tribe. The dog wasn't of her clan, she didn't know him, he was not of her species, and on top of all that, he was part of an enemy clan. She saves him anyway, and I use that as the example that saves our species in the final battle of the novel in 2055 CE (33 years from now). Thank you for defining your position on the evil of trans-humanism! PM 2022
Finished the vid. Thanks to both; I enjoyed it. Final thought: Anyone who advocates for the virtues, and better character, should be asked if they are vegan. If not, such a character is WAY too anthropocentric... PS: were any of the stoics vegetarian? If not, maybe get back to the old Pythagoreans...
Hi Nikola, WOW! I loved this battle of idealist v. Stoic realist. Dr. Pigliucci has challenged me more than any of your other interviewees, and for that I am grateful. Pigliucci's is the kind of tough love I need if I am going to grow in my thinking. It looks to me as if he challenged you, too--I sensed a bit of defensiveness on your part. But he pressed on anyway, and that was good to see. I side with you in wanting some way to take Aurelean/Stoic virtue(s) all the way to the Platonic (NOT Socratic!) Philosopher King. You gave two examples of exemplary philosopher kings, both of whom I admire (I add a third: Greta). But both of your examples were assassinated, and I think this gets to the root of the practical problem in which Dr. Pigliucci is very much grounded, but wasn't actually mentioned during your interview: the undeniable call of the lizard brain. How do you resolve selfishness v. altruism so that sufficient numbers of children (taught virtue from 3 yrs old, as MP recommended) don't relapse or get lost in the system and decide to emulate Genghis Khan or Josef Stalin? "I alone can solve the problem," the orange dictator said in 2016 when he was running for President. People believed him. They believed HE was the philosopher king. And that's the problem, isn't it? Trump lacked virtue, his followers definitely lacked virtue, and that's what we get. I also believe with you, Nikola, that as your example Robert McKee said, he cannot teach anyone how to write. When people ask me how they can write and publish a book, I tell them I can't help them. I tell them to not even try to write. McKee is being nice, while my words are not so nice, but we say the same thing: If you really want to write, you'll do it. You'll find a way. It seems to me McKee is appealing to the faculty of desire. If you have the will to write, you will. He dangles the carrot, and maybe that works. Maybe that's why his students have enjoyed unequaled success. He is more of a coach than a teacher in that regard, perhaps. Two more points. Plato is NOT Socrates, and so the Socratic refrain that he did not teach anything is perhaps an unguarded faithful quote that somehow made it through Plato's heavy editing and pushing of Socrates into some ideal that he never was, but also Socrates was not likely to have developed the grand, ideal schemes that Plato articulated, and therefore was less likely to have guided his students to some pre-set conclusion, as MP argued. Finally, though, I would LOVE to hear Dr. Pigliucci's rebuttal to any of these points; based on the interview, I am sure he would have some quite stunning counterpoints and could leave me more than a little humbled. This guy is fantastic. More, please!!! PM 2022
Happy you enjoyed it, my friend. If you want more of Massimo, is it correct to presume you have already seen our previous interview that I recorded a couple of years ago with him? www.singularityweblog.com/massimo-pigliucci/
15:00 we never had a global "story", but nor did we have a global civilization.
Precisely my point: every civilization has its story. The moment it loses its story is the beginning of the end.
@@SingularityFM perhaps Pigliucci's new story to rule them all is the story of climate change apocalypse. Just as the cold war story united citizens of the USA, our opposition to climate change is intended to unite the world
@@haraldwolte3745 A story that works is viral. It is popular. It is contagious. It spreads like a virus and sneezers who hear it for the first time can't wait to turn around and share it with someone else. So, clearly, at least in its current version, Climate Change doesn't work that well and is clearly not a story we are uniting around. If it were we'd be taking more consistent and coherent action. Alas we're not.
@@SingularityFM true, but I'm not suggesting that it is a good story or the one we need. I'm suggesting that the huge polarization and emotion surrounding climate change could be because some people are attempting to use it as a secular apocalyptic story to unite us around.
OH! I forgot to add the essential, the last point about trans-humanism. It's the people whose lizard brain leads them--the people like Kurzweil and Musk and Trump and Pol Pot--who advocate most energetically for trans-human development or AI hegemony. Well screw that. I actually didn't know until this interview that you and I stand together on the issue. Trans-humanism can only lead to the death of most or all of us, and probably also the death of our planet. I'm writing about that right now, in my sci-fi manuscript, TRINITY. In rough draft I actually had a character named Langzeit (you'll figure it out), over 100 years old (kept alive by his vitamin cocktails), who succeeded in adding cyber enhancements to his brain. But of course AI was already in charge, and could gain intelligence far faster than Langzeit and his gang. So Langzeit goes in for a 5th round of enhancements and the AI overlords kill him, and everyone else with cyber implants. Eliminating potential competition, as it were. My novel ends when a situation arises allowing compassion to rule humanity. The exemplar is not anyone we know, but a woman 16,000 years ago who risked her life to save a dog who lived with an enemy tribe. The dog wasn't of her clan, she didn't know him, he was not of her species, and on top of all that, he was part of an enemy clan. She saves him anyway, and I use that as the example that saves our species in the final battle of the novel in 2055 CE (33 years from now). Thank you for defining your position on the evil of trans-humanism! PM 2022
Finished the vid. Thanks to both; I enjoyed it.
Final thought: Anyone who advocates for the virtues, and better character, should be asked if they are vegan.
If not, such a character is WAY too anthropocentric...
PS: were any of the stoics vegetarian? If not, maybe get back to the old Pythagoreans...
Nikola is right - we need a new story.
It should be Sentiocentrism (vs anthropocentrism).
Also, an algorithmic story, called bitcoin, would help.