Since in know that Pinker flew on the Lolita Express to Epstein Island multiple times, it's impossible to listen to this guy.. If anybody is smart enough to know what's going on over there, it's this guy.. So he can't use the excuse, that he was just there to enjoy the weather..
Since in know that Pinker flew on the Lolita Express to Epstein Island multiple times, it's impossible to listen to this guy.. If anybody is smart enough to know what's going on over there, it's this guy.. So he can't use the excuse, that he was just there to enjoy the weather..
@Shiraziekamel this is not the case at. To get this result you have to select a specific section of a specific continent in a specific, very limited, time frame. On top of this, the trend is is and has been going down continuously so even if it were the case, that would say little of the enlightenment’s effectiveness to get the things we want.
yes, thats what so called liberals tend to say, except when these kids are still a day or two from being born, than their lives are irrellevant (in some "liberal" and "elightened" states of US and in australia) because the kid "is not" a kid "yet", and the pregnancy is just a private female issue... lol
18:36 is telling. Mearsheimer has humanities training, Pinker doesn't. Pinker thinks that by producing empirical material he can induce first principles - totally backwards. First principles are in fact a priori, but Pinker has declared this inadmissible. Mearsheimer wants a specific difference between enlightenment and pre-enlightenment thought, something ideal that distinguishes material progress under an enlightenment regime from that which went before. Pinker can't even understand what Mearsheimer is asking for.
I think this is a very insightful reading of how their two styles of thinking differ. Pinker is not used to having a conversation based more on logic and philosophy than raw data. Mearsheimer is similarly probably not used to pointing to data as the primary tool for argumentation. Thus, Pinker fails to understand Mearsheimer’s philosophical problems with Pinker’s position and Mearsheimer ignores the evidence Pinker provides.
except that Pinker does not provide any 'evidence'. His 'evidence' for the reduction of global warfare, for example, has been widely debunked by a large cohort of historians working on all kinds of societies and historical periods. It is a 'just so' story, nothing more. It also comes down to questions of how you measure something as war, as conflict etc - and what you do when you 'exteriorize' such conflicts by creating (non-documented) wars elsewhere. A thorny factual subject on which P's points have been systematically debunked. When Pinker talks about evolution, he needs to take evolution seriously: selective pressures for resources, needs etc and ideology is one of those commodities that is subjected to the same kind of selective forces as anything else. When one thinks like that, one is firmly in Mearsheimer's camp. It ain't satisfying or pretty or elegant, but it is closer to reality a a set of explanations.
Mearsheimer’s argument that you need first principles to get moral progress is just clearly refuted by Pinker here. You can name any metric like wars, poverty, crime or happiness, and all have gotten better with some - but not complete - alignment on first principles. If that’s not moral progress then what is?
@@johnmartin4233 it's bad argumentation and unfalsifiable. here are Pinker's premises: 1. If things get better, there is moral progress. 2. Things got better. 3. Therefore, there is moral progress. This is an uninteresting and almost vacuous argument. Further, we have no causal claim. What caused (2.)? Was it moral progress, or was it merely material progress? If the latter, how do we then justify (1.) without asserting it a priori? How could we even assert it a priori? If we assert it a priori, we now have something circular. We are using (2.) to prove moral progress, but also now hoping that moral progress caused (2.). But the very existence of the cause is that which we sought to argue for! All of this is hopelessly muddled. Pinker's isn't an argument - it's an ideology.
@@johnmartin4233 Mr. draw4everyone nailed it. There is no causal explanation in Pinker's argument, nor any distinction between moral and technical realms. The nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki doubtlessly express the kind of progress Pinker is talking about: a technical one, thar is, finding better means to achieve previously established goals (whether it is curing cancer of killing an entire population). Moral progress would mean that individuals, societies and states are nowadays more inclined to making good decisions on a moral ground, that is, of doing good according to first principles that indicate what the good life is.
What I took to be the main difference was that Mearsheimer believes that rationality will lead to a divergence (politically and morally) on first principles, while Pinker believes that rationality has led to a convergence on many values. Mearsheimer believes that people will use their rationality to defend their tribal political and moral beliefs, while Pinker believes in a trend of convergence, that the trend of enlightenment will or could continue into the future. Mearsheimer predicts a world of moral entrenchment, Pinker one of moral improvement. Mearsheimer is pessimistic, Pinker the more optimistic. In the end, their disagreement might not be that big. Pinker is, as a psychologist, not oblivious to the fact that rationality is used to justify beliefs, yet he also beliefs that it has and can be used for changing beliefs. Mearsheimer knows the same, yet he believes that a realistic view of power politics will lead to the conclusion that states and its actors in using their rationality, will lead to strife. Pinker believes that wars can become fewer and less bloody as the incentives for war as gain, glory and security only have diminishing returns.
As we stand ever closer to nuclear war it is hard to take the notion of some sort of "moral" progress seriously. With nuclear holocaust in mind, Mearsheimer most clearly explains the world while Pinker will wake up from his dream screaming!
@@barryffay We do not stand ever closer to nuclear war - we are standing further from the times of the Cold War. Even the conflict in Urkaine hasn't produce much fear in that regard (not counting the initial empty threats), because however eager Putin was to win, even he understand the dangers of a nuclear disaster. The only serious problem in that context is religious fanatics like that of Islam, who do not cear if they or even the whole humanity lives.
@@barryffay I wonder what will Pinker's rationalize a third world war and the degrading morality of the world/the west. What happens when AI gains more power and birthrates go down and tyranny rules us all? IT will be way too late to walk back his statements by then.
The difference is that Mearsheimer feels we need a convergence of views and Pinker does not see it to be relevant. In my opinion, we do not need leadership (elites or dictators) to enforce a convergence of views as that stifles any corrective movement when the enforced view is wrong. The examples from history are too many to mention but any monarchy or class system should suffice.
Very enlightening discussion. I got the feeling that both are against fanaticism but one is a fanatic about it 😊 Political liberalism at the end of the day is an ideology, and like many others, has the tendency to see other ideologies as inferior, and has a long history of trying to export its values, sometimes militarily, which leads to conflicts. Realism is being aware of this, and thinking about how to minimize the possibility of conflict occurrence, which is the real question.
You must also take into account the advancements to mankind that liberalism has ushered in and not dissuade it's implications on human rights and dignity in addition to innovations in science and even the ultimate formation of the US. These principles are being unrealized, forgotten and now a days demonized.
@@Birdylockso I guess your question is are there any decisions to go to war that a realist analysis would find wrong. Well the answer is yes. I invite you to google Mearsheimer's view on the war of Irak, Vietnam, Ukraine and the current flattening of Gaza.
16:20 I think there's a hole in Pinker's attempt to objectively define progress though human flourishing. He lists a number of phenomena that most of us would by themselves define as positive, but the questions still remain: 1) who actually benefits? 2) at what cost? 3) in what timeframe? Regarding timeframe human society is undergoing a rapid change, it is yet to be determined what effects this change will have in the long term. For example if the end result of these changes were to be a nuclear world war or social collapse, I wouldn't call the process that led to this result 'progress' no matter how the process might have seemed like positive at one point. This is still yet to be decided. Regarding the cost alone there are many societies and individuals who would argue that even the human flourishing increase, that Pinker cites, is not worth the ecological unsustainability, loss of cultural distinctiveness, subordination of entire societies to a foreign power, unsustainable demography and virtually endless plethora of other reasons. For this reason I really have to agree with Mearsheimer here, people don't agree on first principles and what might seem as obvious first principle to you gets a lot more complicated and subjective once you encounter a different viewpoint, different set of values in a different culture.
Interesting. Your reasoning about the timeframe issue reminds me of the Chinese proverb about the old man who lost his horse. In that case, when do you think it would be appropriate to evaluate whether Enlightenment ideals have lead to progress? 50 years? 200? Regarding your first question, Pinker argues that the vast majority of the world has benefited from the fruits of the Enlightenment (e.g starting from 3:50 worldwide life expectancy, child mortality, famine, extreme poverty, etc., since 1700/1800s). I wonder if you disagree with this? I'm also curious: what are specific examples of first principles in disagreement?
A feel a big flaw in Pinker's work is that he cherry picks timescales to suit his purposes. For instance, talking about ethnic tolerance within countries improving doesn't take into account the historical evidence that say tolerance of different religions in say Eastern countries was sometimes much better than at present, say pre-World War 2 Middle East compared to currently. In fact, the regression in ethnic tolerance in many countries outside the West has been precisely linked to antagonistic and destructive Western foreign policy.
Modern ethnic intolerance in the middle east is the result of the liberal enlightenment, where the individual cares about himself and dosent believe in the liberation but in the exploitation of people further away from his circle.
@@grahammcrae4277That's my point...his very framing and cherry picking creates systemic confirmation bias. He is far far from an expert on most of the stuff he pronounces upon. He is a congnitive psychologist and linguistic. Not a historian, not an ecologist, not a sociologist, etc. And it shows.
Yup. His tribalism in government example is a great one. My mind immediately went to my time living in Abu Dhabi. The government absolutely prioritizes the locals, but that doesn't mean that nobody else is served or that anyone else is miserable because of it. It is far from perfect, but it isn't a revolution waiting to happen either.
Yes, well observed. 'Is' and 'ought' and the huge intellctual and logical chasm between both concepts. Very human to make this mistake though. The older I get, it's not that I become more conservative rather it is I become more pragmatic about what is possible given the 'fixed' position of human nature and how susceptible we are to human passions. Mearsheimer is closer to that position.
Pinker’s liberalism is more akin to a primitive religion than a sophisticated system of thought. He just repeats the same mantras in all these “debates” and never properly engages with the other side. I could feel John getting a bit frustrated with this.
22:12 “The more you try to formulate alternatives to Enlightenment ideals, the better they look” This is the heart of Pinker’s point, that the other options are not only worse, they have been far, far worse. And where John says at 18:45 “that’s so obvious to not even be interesting” regarding child deaths, Steven responds saying those ARE first principles but we didn’t get to hear John’s response (given that that just flawed his argument). Other first principles outlined in his book Enlightenment Now are that we virtually all agree that some things are better than others: life over death, health over sickness, happiness over suffering, abundance over poverty, peace over war, knowledge over ignorance and superstition, and several more
An example would be China has a higher life expectancy than the US and is by far safer for its citizens than the US. But I don't think anyone would think China is more "Enlightened" than the US.
Pre Enlightenment people would’ve agreed on basic needs like their children not dying. Don’t understand Pinker claiming those as enlightenment ideals. Industrialised society means those needs easier to meet now.
John and Steve are two of my favorite public intellectuals. "The Blank Slate" and "The Tragedy of Gret Power Politics" are two of my favorite books. However, I tend to agree more with John than Steve lately. As far as this debate goes, both have valid points and are correct from different perspectives. Here is how I would summarize it: since questions of moral and political disagreement are infinitely divisible, both can be true that there has been progress (at least in part attributable to enlightenment ideas), but the amount of disagreement is not decreasing significantly because more and more new questions arise, or finer and finer details of existing questions are elevated to important status.
I think John's overall point isn't that progress isn't being made, but it's in how Pinker defines progress which is problematic. Science/technology is what's responsible for the progress Pinker is referring to.
@@KarlRobespierre That's right, I guess. Now science/technology accounts to technical and cognitive, not necessarily moral. Some of the very same scientific and technological breakthroughs that allowed the increase in human life expectancy, on the one hand, have also turned modern warfare much more deadly than those more frequent (but far less lethal) wars of the past. Just think of radiation therapy and the nuclear bomb.
But nobody said "the amount of disagreement is decreasing". Disagreement is as vibrant as ever, that's why we use democracy to sum the collective vote to make political decisions. Thats what we aspire towards at least.
Causal inference is tricky business. Claiming "is not this but that" categorically on big historical outcomes is not a serious argument; especially in this case, since Pinker addresses this issue in his writings @@KarlRobespierre
At 22:30 Steven Pinker gives a good display of how incredibly enmeshed he is in his own western ideas of what a reasonable person would believe. There are plenty of people from less individualistic non-western cultures who will make reason-based arguments that arranged marriage is better than a marriage of choice. Here’s a quick one: young people make choices for partners that are based on ephemeral attractions to one another that do not last. Therefore, their parents with their fully developed brains and their greater amount of life experience are better off choosing their partners based on less interesting, but more important factors.
Its the arranged marriages with under aged brides that are a problem."According to the Shari'ah, if a girl is a minor (did not attain puberty), she may be given in marriage by her father. When she attains puberty, she has the right to maintain the marriage or discontinue the marriage. There is no age limit to be intimate with one's wife even if she is a minor.
I heard what he was saying there not as stating there aren't reason-based arguments for compulsory church / arranged marriage, but that you will have a hard time convincing people who are already individualistic to subordinate their desires to the greater good. If I'm right, he was refuting his own thesis in that moment.
1) Arranged marriages are not based on reason, but on cultural tradition(s) and hierarchy. 2)Arranged marriages do not allow an individual to reason or at least choose. 3) All thinking is clearly not reasoned thinking. Ideological thinking, confirmation bias is not reasoned thinking.
@@sean5768 the question is what vector do you pin "human flourishing" on? Do you pin it on (to offer just two of the possibly numerous vectors) 1. the durability and functionality of the marriage pact (ie does it persist or crash and burn?) or 2. do you pin it on sovereign individualistic rights (ie my agency in wearing the success and failures of my personal decisions)..... which brings us back to the Q of "what is it that one is standing on when one is talking of liberalism?" since it doesn't appear to be neutral territory (I think that's one of the key offerings of Meirsheimer's offensive realism : in an anarchistic system (ie system that levels out into an absence of a hierarchy) there is no place to stand that is neutral territory. . "Human flourishing" is not neutral or automatically consensus establishing since it can be intersected in various conflicting ways. I am not sure that Pinker could fully appreciate this point, since he seemed to only touch on weak forms of the argument (such as rhetorically asking whether we do or do not have a consensus that killing children is bad).
@kanup5141 there may not be a consensus for human flourishing but the majority of migration in the world is to countries with liberal values in the West. Comparatively few people choose to go to autocracies or otherwise illiberal countries. And it's not just about economic opportunities in the West.
I think the problem with Pinker's argument is the assumption that the spread of liberalism comes about because of the rational strength (truth) of the idea itself, rather than its spread being as a consequence of the geopolitical power of the first Europe, then the US. After all, unless you have oil, or perform some other necessary regional function, the US is going to insist that you move towards liberal capitalist democracy. Put it this way, does the Chinese president dress like a European Victorian because of the truth of the outfit, or because that is how one must dress in order to be taken seriously in a Western dominated world? The Greek world also became democratic for the brief moment that Athens was a regional hegemon. It is far more likely that liberalism, at least on a global scale, is only a moment in history.
I don't think Pinker understands what a moral principle is, or why disagreement about first principles means that progress isn't such an obvious trend in history. He seems to think the disagreement about first principles that JM keeps bringing up are analogous to holding different opinions, when they are in fact the basis from which we reason *to* moral conclusions. Pinker's 'proof' that we have seen progress in human history is nothing more than a bundle of technological, scientific (in the broadest sense of the term), and political changes thrown together as if this amounted to something. His understanding of moral disputes, as well as his grasp of the history of science-which he presents as an upward progression-is incredibly shallow. Let's not even talk about his poor grasp of politics and history. In the end, all Pinker is saying is that life has gotten more comfortable for more people. The fact that he can't tell that that doesn't necessarily mean moral and political progress is astounding. Edit: as others have pointed out, Pinker doesn't acknowledge the vast and incalculable amount of violence required to sustain the comfortable lifestyle that modern capitalist countries can provide for *some* of their citizens.
Would you mind giving an example of a moral first principle, and a dispute as such? Searching for definitions result in Enlightenment terms, which obviously doesn't clarify your point.
Pinker can’t think beyond the narrow life experiences of the liberal bourgeoisie he is a member of. It’s almost embarrassing hearing him repeat the same tired old mantras and not properly engage with his opponent’s arguments. Literally no one could believe Pinker won this.
@EarlofSedgewick Sure, I think there are pretty common moral principles such as murder being wrong, or theft being wrong. These are common enough across multiple cultures, epochs and political communities. But what I think JM is trying to tease out is that there exist other first principles that people hold just as dearly that are not commonly agreed on. God being the moral arbiter is a good example. Such a principle will lead you to reason differently and to reach different conclusions. Now, in the realm of science and academia more broadly disagreement is largely inconsequential. But in the realm of politics, disagreement could potentially become existential. And a lot of these disagreements stem from deeply held convictions (first principles) that condition the reasoning process of any given person or group. This conflict of first principles makes any kind of moral and political progress extremely difficult, and not nearly as obvious as Pinker believes.
@@GaariyeJ Quite, but even if two parties hold every moral principle in common they could still go to war if their interests are fundamentally in opposition i.e. they both have a "rational" belief in wanting to maximize their wealth yet are in a struggle to control a valuable resource e.g. oil. What type of "consensus" or "universal truth" is available or applicable in such zero sum cases - answer: NONE.
It would have been good to cross examine the data points that Steven provided. The way that data is selected and interpreted is very important and can lead to varying conclusions.
I want to ask anybody commenting here that thinks Pinker is shallow or Maerheimer won the debate to please read Steven Pinker's book. I think it is such an outstanding book that encomposses so much historic evidence. Maerheimer is a very interesting thinker as well but I think his Realism school of thoughts fails due to its simplistic assumptions about the way states operate. He would himself also acknowledge that his theories are simplifications (because otherwise it would be very hard to model IR), but I think that in general the field of IR is too narrow to fully comprehend human progress. Pinker draws upon a large body of literature and has a lot of historic perspective which is really missing in today's debate. I think the point Pinker didn't make but what he should have made more clearly is that Maersheimers assumption, that we cannot agree on first principles, might be a true at any time but historically we have come to agree on A LOT of first principles (freedom of speech etc.). THis is the true byproduct of the enlightenment. There will always be fights and there will also be people who do not subscribe to enlightenment values and historically, these people have been at the losing end. Anti-enlightenment ideologies are always less attractive to societies. Of course it is hard to determine what is enlightenment and anti-enlightenment.
I find Mearsheimer's use of "unfettered reason" a tip off to what he really thinks. And commenters in agreement with him seem to pine for a more primitive time.
I don’t intend to be too narrow minded by this observation, but misspelling Prof Mearsheimer’s name 3x sorta detracts from what otherwise might be an interesting comment.
@@smashedhulk8492 depends on what you consider primitive beyond the obvious. Never before in humanity's history have more people created lives irresponsibly and without love😓
This begs the question though. If you just say the things that win out are enlightenment, and that enlightenment is hard to determine in the moment, you just create a meaningless definition of the word that self-enforces based on whatever has happened. The free speech example is particularly fun because free speech dropped a lot in China (starting in 1989 is interesting) and China alone has as many people as the entire first world. The middle east isn't looking too great there either lately - certainly much worse in Iran than before. There are other recent examples. Now if India decided to do the same thing would we now consider state censorship to be 'enlightened' because it's the direction the global population is progressing? Is the move towards democratic systems that are less and less accountable to the needs of their people and basically decided by billion dollar ad campaigns funded by corporate lobbyists the next step in enlightenment's direction, because I really don't think we're gonna get off that particular train.
Indeed. The countries championing enlightenment are silent about the amount of suffering happening in Gaza, and the country leading the liberal world is actually sponsoring it. This shows that liberalism is mainly used as a glitter to cover the ugly face of colonialism and the hegemony of the west. It's like how the conquistadors used Christianity to cover the conquest of the Americas.
@@czargs A zygote isn’t a child, bud. Not even conservatives believe that. The OC was talking about Israel’s massacring of 10,000 children, and climbing.
Well said. Liberal minds have been shown to be believers in mythical fantasyland and are completely out of touch with reality. Pinker’s affirmation of free speech made me laugh out loud considering the US government was just charged by the court system with the worst violations of free speech in modern history re the twitter files.
@@grahammcrae4277 Most of us in the West see that (not sure about the future of it) but the point is that living longer and not shorter is not something that the Enlightenment produced. As Mearsheimer said: you don't need the Elightenment to figure out that babies shouldn't die. You had medicine and science and good moral reasoning long before the Enlightenment - or democracy.
@@januspatermagnus I’d like to see a chart showing birth mortality prior and after the enlightenment. Maybe there was an understanding of the value of life but I suspect religious dogma meant two things; first, you’d still wish death upon enemies, big and small. Second, you’d recognize the tragedy of child mortality but chalk it up to God’s will. (God’s plan, as Drake would say..) Enlightenment said bs to that.
The key thing to remember about the Enlightenment was the debate. Often (but not always) a consensus emerged, but the philosophes debated among themselves.
We should try to define the enlightenment as a practical concept, because nationalism was a enlightenment idea as opposed to reactionary monarchies that haven't produced rational borders. As an example 1848 revolutions where nationalistic and enlightened as opposed to reactionary monarchies. If we don't define basic concept's we never gett a clear conclusion. Great debate, it was great honor to listen to it.
Kant's definition in "Was ist Aufklärung?" (What is Enlightenment?) is a classic. In it he recalls Horace's "Sapere Aude!" (Dare to know!) and defines Enlightenment as man's emergence from his immaturity. It is resolve and courage to use your understanding (once you have it) without guidance from others.
Hard to lose against Pinker, and his weird cherry picked statistics to uphold liberal capitalism and its assault on the global south. but that doesn't take away from Mearsheimer. The Realist position trumps liberals every time!
Why does Pinker deduce that an alternative to the Enlightenment would mean abandoning reason? This argumentation line is clearly misleading and involves the false dilemma fallacy. As far as I know, the ancient Greeks were not in the Enlightenment age, but they practiced reason, the same with the Romans, the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians, the Chinese, etc. ... that is not the point of the discussion, the point of the discussion is that by putting only science on the pedestal (i.e. unfettered reason), it implicitly assumes that morality will magically emerge from the science, and that will lead to a better society .. so, the alternative to Enlightenment is to think about what else needs to be put on the pedestal besides science, so that this something imposes control over the excesses of reason (i.e. unfettered reason) ..
Hmm , would be improvement on things everybody on earth think are good for humankind in adition to things we all agree are good for pets for example . I have issues with misleading labels on reality , old slavery on a good owner is more than comparable to some modern instances of debt slaves - as the free society have suicide rates in excess of 10 to 20 times what slave population experienced .
Yeah I had trouble extracting what exactly John's issue is. Most of his concerns sound like semantic issue's with specific words (like liberal) than anything substantive.
"The good life" is not the same as "life". Basically, what makes life worth living? What should society look like? Beyond the simplistic and self-evident, Pinker has no answers. Within that framework, there has been no progress.
"To agree on first principles" means to have a common understanding of what a good life is. Pious life (following religion X), helping others, advancing technology, living self-determined, ...
We should also include the democidal regimes of Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China, where millions of people were slaughtered as elites in those countries pursued an unattainable utopia.
@@marcusaurelius9123 You can’t absolve “The Enlightenment” of the horrors of the 19th, 20th and 21st century where corpses are concerned. If you do, then you’d have to make the same argument that you can’t attribute the technological advancements of the late 19th, 20th and 21st century to the enlightenment as they happened centuries later. You can’t have it both ways.
@@marcusaurelius9123 Yes, but the genocides and democides I'm talking about occurred in an age that was ostensibly shaped by Enlightenment values. That's the key point.
"My argument is you need a consensus to get progress." This couldn't be any more obviously false. You might as well argue that you need consensus to elect a leader, or you need consensus to enact legislation. Consensus is impossible at the scale of nations, and yet progress is self-evident, in all the statistics cited by John's opponent, and by the most cursory observation.
Mearsheimer severely misunderstands Pinker's position. Pinker never argues that we live in a utopia where everyone agrees about everything and no one fights. He only says that we agree on more and fight less than we used to. The question is about moral progress, not moral perfection. Mearsheimer also argues that because reasonable people disagree, reason does not lead to truth. That only follows if you believe that two contradictory ideas can both be true (there is no truth) or that reason cannot discover truth (you believe in the supernatural). It's more likely that people are simply less reasonable than they appear.
Is there truth, when it comes to first principles? I'd argue there isn't, but even if we lean on a concept like evolution, which in my eyes is the closest we can get; we're only moving further away from the natural way of things. And that has nothing to do with enlightenment: it has to do with technology.
Is that true anyway. Individuals in Western countries are at loggerheads on many important matters. Political parties move to the right with a rising body count on their watch. Western interference - military, financial thro' the World Bank/IMF - is pushing millions into turmoil and poverty. Then there are resource wars. As for the Enlightenment, this ignores say Confucianism. Meanwhile, all that liberal democracy has brought us to massive overexploitation of the natural world and climate breakdown. I'll go for realism with a big dash of ecology and physics.
"He only says that we agree on more and fight less than we used to. ". That depends on what exactly you call a 'fight', how granular you measure it, and *where* you fight - on your own patch of turf or elsewhere and what that will cost (to yourself) and unnamed others). When all this is taken into account historically very little remains as evidence on Pinker's side.
But the argument isn't about Utopia, it's about whether or not the enlightenment is the primary engine of progress and morality. Pinker and people of his mindset credit the enlightenment with appreciation of reason, which to a large extent it was, but it wasn't the first instance of it. The enlightenment did play a role in Western progress, but there were much stronger factors in Western world dominance. Narrowness of the Atlantic gave Europe access to rich lands peopled with stone-aged cultures and extreme vulnerability to disease. The ability of some European kingdoms to rape those lands incentivized other Europeans to target the supply lines for plunder, and eventually to take part in the direct exploitation of those lands and peoples directly. This dynamic, along with the Protestant reformation and the Catholic response to it, motivated weapons development at a much higher rate than anywhere else in the world. The enlightened British, Dutch, French, and Americans were all slave-holding societies who created racist and exploitative colonial empires, as did the less enlightenment-associated Russians. They all created two-tier empires based on a ruling nation-state that promoted enlightenment philosophy among those within the privileged nationality but exploited all the imperial subjects outside of it, often using a divide and rule strategy. The fate of less nationalistic empires: Chinese, Persian, and Ottoman, lost ground not because they were unattached to enlightenment philosophy, but because the industrial revolution occurred outside their realms, and because their military investment wasn't fueled by African slaves and American gold. Is the industrial revolution a child of the enlightenment? I would argue that to some degree it is. The scientific method is, and that is not insignificant, but good science had been taking place long before. And even the scientific method can be stifling if it's made into an exclusive dogma. Investment in research possible because of the fruits of exploitation, the need to compete against fellow exploiters, and the development of an economic class of men with time and personal fortunes built on exploitation created the environment that produced the harnessing of steam.
Pinker’s progress doesn’t come from the enlightenment but from the Industrial Revolution. It applies mostly to the global north and is built up on the backs of the global south which is heavily exploited (like the Industrial Revolution). It is also built upon the foundation that nature’s resources are unlimited and that nature’s wellbeing is unimportant. (Extreme exploitation) Hence climate change, species extinction, deforestation, water shortage, wide spread pollution etc. The intense and incredible evilness that this system creates is what Pinker champions. Hence he is evil to.
Fossil fuel is a big factor in this. One barrel of oil should be equal to 4.5.years of a mans work. We use fossil fuel equal to 500.billion peoples work. No, wonder that slavery went away. The same with food. Prior to the green revolution you put 1. kcal of work into farming and took 10.kcal out. Now you put 19.kcal into farming and take 1.kcal out. Those kcal you put in is fossil fuel. So, a vacuum of abundance of cheap energy have reduced hunger and conflicts. We should run out of cheap energy within the next 20.years and see increases in prices of 2-300% in real terms. Let's see how that world will look like.
The technology that began in the industrial revolution and continued through the 20th century has greatly reduced hard manual labor requirements and will continue to.
I wish more people had your insight. liberal education wants us to think it’s the superior value & not the ‘unfortunate’ exploitation that accompanied it at every step
It seems to me that there is no reason to think that extreme exploitation would not occur by applying Mearshimer's offensive realism either. Can anyone weigh in on this, I'm barely familiar with his work. It seems to me that Mearshimer believes relative stability ("political/moral progress") is achieved by regional hegemons establishing their positions, and then being limited by, predominantly, geography and economy. Nothing about this would hint at even a future situation where exploitation of resources is reduced. I agree with your assessment of the problematic founding principles of liberalism believing in unlimited resources. However, if we understand and adhere to liberal ideals, it would be rational to prioritise sustainable energy sources so as to engineer our situation to fit the ideals. I'm not claiming this has happened or will necessarily work because "it is good". I'm responding to your claim that he is evil, because liberal ideals are evil, because humans will exploit their situation in order to maximise survival. Mearshimer's whole theory rests on the idea that human political organisations will and should maximize their own power in order to become the hegemon. That doesn't happen without resource exploitation and foreign policy/economic dominance. Open to clarification though.
My question is, why should poverty be reduced as an enlightenment value? All human communities and individuals worldwide, across time and place, would have liked to have more things to eat. As I reached here, John asked this question. So, my question is pointless.
Well, I think the reduction of poverty he links more to the application of enlightenment values. For example, a liberal society might be more inclined to feed people. Either way, the role of enlightenment values is a fairy tale. The reduction of hunger isn't because people have been able to discuss and have decided to feed each other -- it's because of a series of complicated events driven forward by technology.
yes, history is full with examples - all the way back to the neolithic - where new forms of globalizations and food sources etc led to 'progress' for more people etc without any 'philosophical' underpinnings. One could argue that such philosophical and legal 'underpinnings' are nothing more than societal expressions of larger demographic processes: our efforts to create the illusion that we are 'making decisions' or are 'in charge' while most of us actually are not, most of the time.
I think his point was that reducing ‘World Hunger’ is very much a product of enlightenment thinking. Conceiving of a better future for humanity is part of that strain of thought.
Amazed at what a shallow thinker Pinker actually is. His metric for what is good and what makes for progress are largely surface level things. His examples are also incredibly narrow even when they would count as progress.
Good discussion, but disappointed that they didn't touch up on some concrete yet current examples that they disagree in, e.g., the war in Ukraine or the one in the middle East. They should do a third round to address that.
Thank you for hosting and sharing this very informative discussion. Having just finished listening to an interview with Professor Robert Sapolsky, it would be illuminating to add to this debate his theory that man lacks free will. I wonder how that would affect the conclusions of each debater?
People like that confuse free will with “my ego initiates every move I make.” But you are not just your mind. And the fact that an outside observer can see where you’re headed doesn’t mean you didn’t choose to head there.
Asumir la individualidad no supone negar la existencia de una nación, ni el coexistir en una infraestructura social. No son categorías dialécticas individuo y nación contrapuestas para la supremacia de una sobre otra. Steve entiende que negar al inviduo es negar la propia naturaleza y por ende la infraestructura social.
I support John's arguments, and probably could put the discussion on first principles while we have general agreement of "not having young children dying", there is much less consensus by nations, religions and cultures on death (e.g. capital punishment) or life (e.g. abortion). Also yes, I would agree we are social first, then individuals, especially what we can see in Asia. Most of Asia live in tribes (unique groups of ethnic, cultures, language, religion, and history), with exception of Singapore & Malaysia, most of these nations are like mega tribes with foreigners there... say Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, even HK. Lastly I would think Steven's has very narrow view section of the world population, probably Western Europe and Anglo Saxon nations, including US. Not so much rest of the world. Think most of the world follows collectivism instead of individualism which is more of Western, liberal ideals. Overall is very interesting discussion.
10:50 Welp, there goes my respect for this guy. Still think his geopolitical arguments are better reasoned out than Pinker’s more ideological ones, but here (in part 2) they seem to be talking past one another. They need to step back and more clearly define their terms and positions, but I get it, sometimes you get caught up in the moment and it becomes a fencing match.
His anti-white/anti-Christian opinion aside(which could be more rhetorical/defensive than anything), Mearsheimer is 100% correct. The failure of the enlightenment/liberal/libertarian world-view is that it presupposes the existence and permanence of "society"(IE the state). The truth is, every last aspect of the "social-contract" theory is false. The only thing that sustains "liberalism" is the preponderance of Western/American power. If America was weak, it could be easily divide and ruled/balkanized like other weak multiethnic states. Human-nature is tribalism. Which Pinker admits begrudgingly, and Mearsheimer acknowledges but never follows to its logical conclusion because he treats the state as essentially inviolable.
Happy to defend Pinker’s arguments here, if you’d like to state his specific position and lay out criticisms concisely. I’ll try to engage with all the other comments too. Happy debating, people!
@5m5tj5wgsure! At 5:03 John says “My argument is you need a consensus for progress, and what we’re talking about here - the deep ended variable, so to speak - is moral and political progress”. He later hand waves away things like the decrease in child deaths as too obvious to be interesting to moral progress, despite there actually being a consensus on this. So, by ‘deep ended variable’, I think John is focused on the smaller areas of ‘the good life’ that we will inevitably disagree on and Steven is emphasising the large areas that we already have widespread agreement (and that perhaps John isn’t acknowledging). But I think John is mistaken because we have progressed incredibly far already (as detailed in many of Steven’s books), and I think John’s flawed criticism is that we’ll never reach a consensus utopia
you cant really argue that marxism isnt a enlightenment philosophy. marxism comes out of the post enlightenment world, and is far more liberal than capitalism. it is also completely materialist, whereas capitalism depends on quasi spiritual ideas like freewill. the best critique of marx is that it is too material, and doesnt take the unprovable human soul into account. what marx illustrated was that the vast majority of people are not free in the capitalist system. there are masters, ie the owners of capital which is an extremely small percentage of the population and servants the 99% that make up labor who are controlled and exploited. his attempt was mostly to critique his current system and he spent far less time trying to broadly think (speculate) of a system in which people were totally free.
Steve Pinker puts one straw man after another. Even when I believe that his ideals are worth pursuing, I think he relies, for his defense, on a shallow, localistic notion of rationalism, rather than a dialectical one. That means he assumes context-free individual rationality to be a solid point of departure, without realizing that, even when this notion is one of the greatest emancipatory achievements of humanity, an individual’s rationality cannot be understood without historical context, lest it cause irrationality. In fact, at the end, we realize that his context-free definition is not even actually the case because he, tacitly or not so much, assumes the Western liberal notion as the superior way. This forces John Mearsheimer to remind him that we do not need enlightenment to produce certain universal values, which have been proven to exist even before Western dominance. In the end, Pinker´s defense produces the shallow Eurocentric liberal triumphalism that has created a sad counterreaction to the set of great values that he meant to defend. Considering the state of the world today, and particularly the cultural debates taking place within the West, but also beyond, it is hard to escape the conclusion that his point of view has been counterproductive to his own, very commendable, goals.
On the argument that " success of liberalism can be seen by how many societies accept the notions of liberal values". isn't the fact that the most powerful societies are liberal societies since WW2? Imagine if Soviets were more powerful than collective West. Would the world still be swayed by liberal values like past few decades? And isn't liberalism forced on other societies by West using their might of economy, military and culture-political systems?
Sad to say that Harvard is declining as an institution is true. I’m not too impressed with the argument that humans have progressed in the last century morally. We are all conditioned to certain social norms in different societies based on cultural differences. So to say we as human are enlightened in the past 100 years is ludicrous with the saying that history repeat’s itself. The Anglo Saxon race or the so called collective West may have just improved in the past 80 years in their own point of view but have definitely regressed for the past two decades due to power and domination. The alleviation of extreme poverty is achieved by one country alone which is China that did it for over 800 million of it’s citizens. Look at the West especially USA, the homelessness are increasing by the day and life expectancy has declined. To say you Americans live in a democracy is a joke.
It seems to me that Steven and John have different definitions of “progress”. For me, mearsheimers definition is extremely narrow, so much so that of course his progress is not possible. Pinkers definition is much looser, basically the core is that people are fatter, live longer, less disease and more knowledge and better technology, which it sounds like mearsheimer would agree with.
@@beatthebag it's actually simple - John's point is that the so-called measures of progress that Steven relies on are absolutely orthogonal to the Enlightenment. Those things do not require the moral/political implications of the Enlightenment to occur, just the scientific aspects. On the moral and political front, there hasn't been that much progress really.
Steve focuses on the recipe, and John says the ingredients are not there. Reasoning is a tool and it can be used with bias, resulting in sophistry. In a liberal society that is based on "the invisible hand" [pursuit of self interest = the best for society ... really?], that is hardly questionable. Let's make clear what concepts we consider as "untouchable". I believe that THE MAIN human motivator is the desire to not feel inferior to others. This is why we have rules of courtesy and good manners. If we add the idea that unity of individuals makes a greater force, then we have tribalism, which can take the form of an ethnic group, political party, minority group, etc. This is the root of irrationality. Uneducated individuals prefer the benefits they can get by just belonging to a group, than the overall correctness of the system if they were rational ... and then they have to face the corruption within their group. The population needs to understand that only with education and critical thinking they can control their destinies better.
The point is have we all - Again I’ll repeat have we All Reach a consensus on basic principles , and the fact is that we have not !!!! just for example take the war in Israel With the Palestinians ??? take the war in Ukraine ???? Take the strong division that we have here in the United States in terms of domestic policy.. have we come to an agreement on basic moral principles And policy ? the answer is no ! yes we are in a better place in certain areas of the world but But at the same time there been more human hunger and poverty than any time in human history because there’s just more people In the planet going on 7/9 billion yeah there’s a lot of people who are not in poverty and have access to healthcare and food clean water education but that has nothing to do with the fact that The majority of the world agree on basic principles ,political Ideology and Foreign and domestic policy. I would also add that the progress that has been made has to do with the advancements of technology! And NOT That we all agree on basic or moral principles!!! Also Steven Pinker doesn’t take consideration is that today we have countries that have thousands of nuclear Weapons that could end human civilization. I think Steven Pinker is Just wrong !!!!! But it’s fascinating that he continues to argue with some basic points that do not account for the entire truth !! Not only that but he misses the basics point! I’m beginning to question if maybe there are powerful corporations out there that give him money to argue in this way.. John Mearsheimer was Completely on point! Thank you!
When discussing reasoning and rational thinking, it's essential to highlight one figure : Ludwig Wittgenstein. He initially believed he had achieved the Unify -field of logical reasoning, associating himself with the "King of Science" and embracing retirement in rural Austria. However, realizing his mistake, he reemerged to teach in Cambridge, acknowledging that philosophy doesn't conform to linguistic reasoning. The first tenet of enlightenment underscores the freedom to debate. Seeking consensus doesn't always yield the desired outcome. Importantly, ideologies like realism or communism aren't scientific; creating an atomic bomb involves scientific principles, but its use raises moral and political reasoning issues. In ancient Chinese philosophy, the concept of "Heaven and Body as One" suggests a unity of reasoning. Scientifically proving the oneness of Heaven and Body is challenging. Linguistically, we advocate respecting nature-creatures, trees, flowers, water, sun, and moon-as equals to humans. This expression of reasoning is the essence of Enlightenment . Despite disagreements between individuals like John and Steve, the beauty of America lies in respecting the freedom of debate. Period.
It is clear that looking back from this point, society has been going backwards since late 2000s. Science has been more advanced than any point in history, does not mean a damn thing in morality.
@Charlie-nf1nw no, John points out the question is about meaningful human life which can only be defined by extent & quality of human connection but pinker keeps talking about the wealth & technology available to the top .01% of the elite. John keeps saying life is connection and that isn't improving it is declining and Pinker keeps saying but I got to fly to the mossad island of child prostitutes on a g7 oh and you should see the size of my tv!!
After listening to this it doesn't sound like John addresses the Pinker guys points very well. Steven pinker responded to john with detail but john never really responded directly. He kept changing the subject or telling steven what steven thought instead of responding to what steven just said.
As a common man reaction to these esteemed thinkers discussion, it seems that Pinker had a broad overview of the effects of the enlightenment that appear reasonable and that John M was disadvantaged by a narrow attack that never addressed the big picture of why most Westerners would agree the world has progressed since the 1700’s. One possible counter argument to Pinker’s conclusion is that if the world ends up in a thermonuclear war in next few decades, which seems quite plausible, what effect would that have on his position?
Finally! Mearsheimer at the end comes up with the key point: reason is limited. The problem with the enlightenment was that the French Revolution, the slaughter of the aristocracy and brutal tyranny under Napoleon could all be justified on Enlightenment principles.
I don’t believe Pinker ever pondered that there are irrational things that can be advantageous. For average humans, there are a number of functional illusions that undoubtedly have advantages and also certain hazards: The natural propensity for religiosity e.g. Him and Dawkins would probably argue that it is a good thing that the average person in the west is no longer religious, but rapidly declining birth rates could serve to argue the contrary. Patriotism is another one of these functional illusions that are very unfortunate to lose in a culture that wants to self sustain. What if average people also “got over” or ahead of themselves when it comes to these functional illusions: Free Will and love… what then Mr. Pinker? Is that what is further down the line of “Enlightenment”? Can you imagine a world where people no longer experience free will and love? Is that a human place?
Pinker is more correct. Due to the Enlightenment and several ‘mini enlightenments’ prior, we’ve learn how to use reason correctly, by conjecture and criticism. We’ll never find a perfect society, or ultimate truth, but that’s a good thing. We can always work for it.
the results of such 'enlightened' behaviours has brought the entire world several times to the brink of nuclear holocaust. I refer to the 2 or 3 near misses during the Cuban missile crisis: where decisions taken in some buildings in Washington or Moscow by a few people have determined clearly the fate of billions of human being not involved in any decision making whatsoever. We are in a similar position again wrt to the Climate Catastrophe where the same actors show their complete lack of rationality at a global scale. SAdly, rationality does not save us - as McNamara explains in the very watchable film ' Fog of War'. Today we see that on top of this, a lot of Enlightenment isn't that enlightened (lack of democracy and representation even within countries of the 'global north') and certainly rests on the back of a lot of subjugated people and cultures as sources of energy and capital all over the globe and is just one of those ideologies that big systems like to have while their fundamental workings are anarchic and competitive.
Tribalism isn't even irrational, so what Pinker says at around 10:00 onwards doesn't make sense. It just isn't universalistic. There is nothing irrational about sticking up for your next of kin or the ideals of your group, because it increases group cohesion and allows one to benefit or keep on benefitting from the group. These are tangible, rational benefits. Now, his argument might be that we should strive for the highest benefit for the most amount of people (utilitarianism), but it isn't even clear what that is. It's largely only clear what it isn't. Besides, it isn't even clear that what he thinks is the highest benefit for all people or what the smallest common denominator is (like the UN charta) as a corset to force all people into, bothering everyone, is a higher benefit, than if all the different people did their own thing as long as they don't bother others (nationalism).
Prof. John E. Dinardo, a Fellow at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, was once asked by a Student, "How do I succeed in my career?" Prof. DiNardo responded, "Find out what a Capitalist Oligarch wants and give it to him." This explains the career of Steven Pinker. He tells Oligarchs want they want to hear and peddles a subjective and myopic view of "The Enlightenment." He also does not understand the writings of Oswald Spengler. He confuses Scientific changes (sustainability) with moral and political progress. Democracy has been in retreat since 2016, Genocides still occur and much more. There is no "trend."
In this debate John Mearsheimer was simply intellectually superior & demonstrates that with his argumentation. Pinker doesn’t actually engage with John’s critiques and looks like a rabid liberal who isn’t able to question his own presumptions
@@faysal8597 I have read his books….no more of his books. He genuinely has zero insights, just rubbish banality being regurgitated on TV every day. I am very disappointed that he is such a lightweight
@@akap_987 he is an agent pushed by the matrix to condition the youth. Thats why he is at Harvard, to legitimize him, & enable him to push ‘liberal mind control’ onto the slave masses.
Is enlightenment a priority for the majority of humanity? Is this conversation an exercise about best argumentation for "showing who's right" ? Does this help viewers taking sides or getting involved in enlightenment if this is, again, a priority ? What is the Priority around?
Mearsheimer's observation that war is not going away is really a simple, brilliant counterargument to the idea of human progress, even if much progress has been made against poverty and disease, etc.
I agree with Steve. We have made progress, but we are not perfect. John is right from a practical perspective but Steve focuses on the big picture to see what we have achieved…
Pinker saying "we had things like slavery, and human sacrifice, genocide of other people" ... currently there are more slaves (human trafficking for sex, labor, organs, etc.) than at any other time, but of course it is not called slavery nor is it official .. how many lives are sacrificed today before the altar of the Money god? a small sample, Oxycontin, arms trafficking, fast food, etc. etc., of course that is not called human sacrifice, it is called profit .. and talking about genocide, the twentieth century could be said to have made genocide an art and taken it to its maximum expression, although it seems that the 21st century is not going to be left behind ..
Not really a counterargument considering that wars have drastically reduced. Pinker has data on his side. Mearsheimer just misleading rhetoric coming from a disproven perspective on international politics. If you want to know why realism isn't really a perspective supported by the evidence, watch Kraut's video "Critique of Realism".
Pinker is very wrong at 4:30, it is important to point out that marxist leninists generally did not propose a centralized command and control system. They made excuses for why one was needed, instead of a marxist system, to protect their countries from hostile geopolitical forces until. And the irony is this substitute system seemed to work about as we as the average country anyway.
“I’m happy that I don’t live in a Christian country. I’m happy that I don’t live in a white country.” And why would you say such foolish things, John? Western civilization, including the country you live in, happily in your words, flourished on the back of Christian ethics. Christianity itself offers the solution to the very problem of elusive moral truths you struggle to find. And why would living in a white country be “bad”? If anything, history, being it cultural or economic, provides plenty of evidence that the opposite is true. And phenotypic characteristics have always served as markers of group identification and bonding in the survival efforts of prehistoric populations. As a realist, you should at least recognize their evolutionary significance.
Yeah, as much as I like most of what John's says, that gave me a puzzled face. It was blind spot for me. Like, has he thought why he said that? There is nothing bad on being in a white country, it's mostly neutral. If I lived in Japan I wouldn't say "I don't like I live in a mostly asian country". Ok, maybe if you are a minority you think about it. But both of the guests are white, so why would they have a problem living in a mostly white country? It would make more sense if he said "I find it more interesting to live in a multicultural country" but that doesn't mean living in a mostly white country is a negative. Why not neutral?
So what is Mearsheimer's alternative? Seems like he just complains that things are imperfect and it's difficult to resolve conflict. Not a very insightful or persuasive argument. Pinker doesn't seem to disagree, his point is just that there have been improvements that can be attributed to the Enlightenment, and he gave empirical data on how that's the case.
Mearsheimer's argument is that "the politics" should define truth just for the sake of good order, and he likes the truth to be as he sees fit. Not a fan
No, the key point of M is that societies are driven by 'tribal thinking' in which the individual in the past (couple of hundred) years has learned to carve out a niche for its individuality, while P argues that all is based on individuals whose aspirations have become global (to do with rationality etc) and become generally accepted rules. It is obvious on the basis of a quick look at history who is more accurate: M. The 'success' of a group of people over others can sometime depend on ideology, more often on technology and capital and movement of capital. Success always has many fathers, failure does not. P ascribes the Enlighenment as one of those 'fathers', M does not. In a nutshell.
Mearsheimer: You compare countries based on Christian values and others and the overwhelming evidence may give you some insight of where you'd rather live.
It's interesting how a professor can be arguing for enlightenment and still seem to have such a limited view.. ;) Liberalism or enlightenment imo are much more theoretical or even philosophical constructs than he seems to have in mind, with his stats on life expectancy and endorsement % of (I think it was) the millennium goals. I live in what is considered a very enlightened country, high on all the rankings according to parameters X and Y. But I have to carry an ID card when I leave the house, can marry another man but not 2 wives, if I were 17 I wouldn't have half the rights that I have now, my freedom of speech doesn't cover denying the Holocaust or stuff that other people might consider a threat, compulsory education for my kids if I had any, etc. Being a product of my social environment, I don't consider most of these rules to be very anti-liberal. Which of course they are. I'd feel much different if my sense of freedom was to roam the countryside with my herd of unvaccinated goats, my wives in the hut teaching our daughters how to weave while the sons are out collecting firewood. It would be a daily struggle against my nation state, moreover I don't think decades or even a century of more liberal thinking and policies in my country would enable such a lifestyle. Liberalism / enlightenment as a thought process or philosophy is probably best described as 'free of dogma'. By linking progress to enlightenment, enlightenment to liberalism, a strong nation state and international institutions in such a linear manner, Pinker seems to create more dogmatic thinking than he breaks free from.
Your final paragraph was well put. As with most things it all comes down to who makes the rules. “He who has the gold makes the rules”. So one could say it’s liberalism as defined by the Imperialists not liberalism in its purest form.
Great discussion. It helps clarify the different points of view - both of which exist in tension in all societies. But Pinker has never understood, or perhaps accepted, the anthropological record of human experience. He’s so focused on what he thinks is the superiority of western individualism he seems willing to accept the domination of other cultures and attempted conversion to a western mindset. I think Mearsheimer is much more respectful of the lived experience of different cultures/societies/nations and more “realistic” about how we need to relate to the rest of the world.
0:36 John Mearsheimer says, “Reason can lead individuals to come up with smart views that the world works in one way lead other individuals to come up with smart views that the world works in other ways.”
Steven Pinker keeps running away from the main point: people will always disagree on their vision of "the good life." Pinker also uses the grossest stereotypes about religion to the end of attacking a straw man. Pinker needs to explain how society gets in the way of human thought when human thought is the product of social interaction. Pinker's ideology is that of liberal triumphalism, even though he claims to deny this.
Your assessment is fair but I agree with Pinker's efforts and spirit and think we should strive for his ideals regardless of the fact that his faith in their triumph is misplaced.
I absolutely agree. He puts one straw man after another. Even when I believe that Pinker’s ideals are worth pursuing, I think he relies, for his defense, on a shallow, localistic notion of rationalism, rather than a dialectical one. That means he assumes context-free individual rationality to be a solid point of departure, without realizing that, even when this notion is one of the greatest emancipatory achievements of humanity, an individual’s rationality cannot be understood without historical context, lest it cause irrationality. In fact, at the end, we realize that his context-free definition is not even actually the case because he, tacitly or not so much, assumes the Western liberal notion as the superior way. This forces John Mearsheimer to remind him that we do not need enlightenment to produce certain universal values, which have been proven to exist even before Western dominance. In the end, his defense is, as you say, the shallow Eurocentric liberal triumphalism that has created a sad counterreaction to the set of great values that Pinker meant to defend. Considering the state of the world today, and particularly the cultural debates taking place within the West, but also beyond, it is hard to escape the conclusion that his point of view has been counterproductive to his own, very commendable, goals.
It seems to me Pinker addresses that head-on. If I may paraphrase his ideas, smart educated people 200 years ago disagreed strenuously over the morality of slavery. Now smart people agree it was a great sin and disagree over whether society has done enough to redress the harm of slavery and its residual generational effects, an argument early 19th century scholars probably couldn't even imagine. So, yes people there is still disagreement but it's on an entirely different level. That's moral progress if the term means anything, wouldn't you say?
The question of which is getting in the way of what is the key issue. Society in the way of thought vs. the opposite. It’s not as simple as that and Pinker even admits it, unlike M.
The very fact that Marxism-Leninism is Pinker's go-to example is emblematic of the culture he lives in. I consider him highly intelligent and even brilliant in some ways, but breaking free of that world is not something he shows he can do in my opinion. Even his criticisms of modern liberalism are played within the lines of a confined field and many rules, written or unwritten.
@@jamesshepherd9390 ?? Of course I can, that's what I did for Mr. Pinker. Not all thinking has to be binary black/white (perhaps being non-binary makes you uncomfortable; it comes from a lack of flexibility). But now that I think again, I'll dismiss the compliment, too, coming from you.
@@friendlyfire7861 Who are you even replying to? Nothing you just said is even connected remotely to anything I said. Are you actually experiencing a psychotic episode? Since you're apparently so desperate to avoid the charge, I'll just repeated it even more plainly: You are the one trapped in an ideological culture which is putting serious limits on your critical thinking skills, not Pinker -- I suppose this level of deliberate obtuseness is to be expected of someone who unironically finds Mearsheimer convincing.
Industrialization has had far greater impact for most humans in few centuries than anything else. Floated all boats even in the natural unequal world, probably main cause that took down European Monarchy, improved life overall.
John was brilliant in that debate, some thoughts made me think hard. To what degree exactly has enligthenment contributed to the progress we've seen since 1680? Thank you for the debate :)
Enlightenment has contributed so much progress we've seen since 1680, but it will not be able to solve the political issues that we are facing now. The wars will go on and even increase in frequency and intensity. John is right on that.
I am with steven here, if its bad that kids are dying or starving, then the question is what to do about it, and it is the how people disagree on and frankly a lot of people just don't seem to care very much, so there is a problem of achieving goals people have in common but also dealing with the political realities brought about by people who just don't care to try very hard.
Thanks to John and Steve for getting together for this though-provoking convo! Wish they did this more
How come liberal democracy has shed more blood throughout history?
your life seems pretty limited
Since in know that Pinker flew on the Lolita Express to Epstein Island multiple times, it's impossible to listen to this guy..
If anybody is smart enough to know what's going on over there, it's this guy.. So he can't use the excuse, that he was just there to enjoy the weather..
Since in know that Pinker flew on the Lolita Express to Epstein Island multiple times, it's impossible to listen to this guy..
If anybody is smart enough to know what's going on over there, it's this guy.. So he can't use the excuse, that he was just there to enjoy the weather..
@Shiraziekamel this is not the case at. To get this result you have to select a specific section of a specific continent in a specific, very limited, time frame. On top of this, the trend is is and has been going down continuously so even if it were the case, that would say little of the enlightenment’s effectiveness to get the things we want.
Thanks for putting up part 2!
"It's evil to let kids die if you can prevent it." That's timely.
some of these kids could be like you an idiot
yes, thats what so called liberals tend to say, except when these kids are still a day or two from being born, than their lives are irrellevant (in some "liberal" and "elightened" states of US and in australia) because the kid "is not" a kid "yet", and the pregnancy is just a private female issue...
lol
Damn right it's timely. And Pinker says nothing, because he can't.
Steven Pinker would rationalize an exception for Israel.
@@timestimesx7535 It doesn't even occur to him. Real smart guy. He and Chomsky are friends, and Chomsky won't criticize him publicly.
18:36 is telling. Mearsheimer has humanities training, Pinker doesn't. Pinker thinks that by producing empirical material he can induce first principles - totally backwards. First principles are in fact a priori, but Pinker has declared this inadmissible.
Mearsheimer wants a specific difference between enlightenment and pre-enlightenment thought, something ideal that distinguishes material progress under an enlightenment regime from that which went before. Pinker can't even understand what Mearsheimer is asking for.
I think this is a very insightful reading of how their two styles of thinking differ. Pinker is not used to having a conversation based more on logic and philosophy than raw data. Mearsheimer is similarly probably not used to pointing to data as the primary tool for argumentation. Thus, Pinker fails to understand Mearsheimer’s philosophical problems with Pinker’s position and Mearsheimer ignores the evidence Pinker provides.
except that Pinker does not provide any 'evidence'. His 'evidence' for the reduction of global warfare, for example, has been widely debunked by a large cohort of historians working on all kinds of societies and historical periods. It is a 'just so' story, nothing more. It also comes down to questions of how you measure something as war, as conflict etc - and what you do when you 'exteriorize' such conflicts by creating (non-documented) wars elsewhere. A thorny factual subject on which P's points have been systematically debunked. When Pinker talks about evolution, he needs to take evolution seriously: selective pressures for resources, needs etc and ideology is one of those commodities that is subjected to the same kind of selective forces as anything else. When one thinks like that, one is firmly in Mearsheimer's camp. It ain't satisfying or pretty or elegant, but it is closer to reality a a set of explanations.
Mearsheimer’s argument that you need first principles to get moral progress is just clearly refuted by Pinker here. You can name any metric like wars, poverty, crime or happiness, and all have gotten better with some - but not complete - alignment on first principles. If that’s not moral progress then what is?
@@johnmartin4233 it's bad argumentation and unfalsifiable. here are Pinker's premises:
1. If things get better, there is moral progress.
2. Things got better.
3. Therefore, there is moral progress.
This is an uninteresting and almost vacuous argument. Further, we have no causal claim. What caused (2.)? Was it moral progress, or was it merely material progress? If the latter, how do we then justify (1.) without asserting it a priori? How could we even assert it a priori? If we assert it a priori, we now have something circular. We are using (2.) to prove moral progress, but also now hoping that moral progress caused (2.). But the very existence of the cause is that which we sought to argue for!
All of this is hopelessly muddled. Pinker's isn't an argument - it's an ideology.
@@johnmartin4233 Mr. draw4everyone nailed it. There is no causal explanation in Pinker's argument, nor any distinction between moral and technical realms. The nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki doubtlessly express the kind of progress Pinker is talking about: a technical one, thar is, finding better means to achieve previously established goals (whether it is curing cancer of killing an entire population). Moral progress would mean that individuals, societies and states are nowadays more inclined to making good decisions on a moral ground, that is, of doing good according to first principles that indicate what the good life is.
What I took to be the main difference was that Mearsheimer believes that rationality will lead to a divergence (politically and morally) on first principles, while Pinker believes that rationality has led to a convergence on many values. Mearsheimer believes that people will use their rationality to defend their tribal political and moral beliefs, while Pinker believes in a trend of convergence, that the trend of enlightenment will or could continue into the future. Mearsheimer predicts a world of moral entrenchment, Pinker one of moral improvement. Mearsheimer is pessimistic, Pinker the more optimistic. In the end, their disagreement might not be that big. Pinker is, as a psychologist, not oblivious to the fact that rationality is used to justify beliefs, yet he also beliefs that it has and can be used for changing beliefs. Mearsheimer knows the same, yet he believes that a realistic view of power politics will lead to the conclusion that states and its actors in using their rationality, will lead to strife. Pinker believes that wars can become fewer and less bloody as the incentives for war as gain, glory and security only have diminishing returns.
As we stand ever closer to nuclear war it is hard to take the notion of some sort of "moral" progress seriously. With nuclear holocaust in mind, Mearsheimer most clearly explains the world while Pinker will wake up from his dream screaming!
@@barryffay We do not stand ever closer to nuclear war - we are standing further from the times of the Cold War. Even the conflict in Urkaine hasn't produce much fear in that regard (not counting the initial empty threats), because however eager Putin was to win, even he understand the dangers of a nuclear disaster. The only serious problem in that context is religious fanatics like that of Islam, who do not cear if they or even the whole humanity lives.
Is that a part of the idea you will own nothing and like it.?
@@barryffay I wonder what will Pinker's rationalize a third world war and the degrading morality of the world/the west. What happens when AI gains more power and birthrates go down and tyranny rules us all? IT will be way too late to walk back his statements by then.
The difference is that Mearsheimer feels we need a convergence of views and Pinker does not see it to be relevant. In my opinion, we do not need leadership (elites or dictators) to enforce a convergence of views as that stifles any corrective movement when the enforced view is wrong. The examples from history are too many to mention but any monarchy or class system should suffice.
Very enlightening discussion. I got the feeling that both are against fanaticism but one is a fanatic about it 😊
Political liberalism at the end of the day is an ideology, and like many others, has the tendency to see other ideologies as inferior, and has a long history of trying to export its values, sometimes militarily, which leads to conflicts.
Realism is being aware of this, and thinking about how to minimize the possibility of conflict occurrence, which is the real question.
Nice summary
You must also take into account the advancements to mankind that liberalism has ushered in and not dissuade it's implications on human rights and dignity in addition to innovations in science and even the ultimate formation of the US. These principles are being unrealized, forgotten and now a days demonized.
Well said, but has Realism actually prevented any conflicts that we know of?
Excellent,
@@Birdylockso I guess your question is are there any decisions to go to war that a realist analysis would find wrong. Well the answer is yes. I invite you to google Mearsheimer's view on the war of Irak, Vietnam, Ukraine and the current flattening of Gaza.
So awesome, really thought provoking. Thanks to all involved.
6:20 John Mearsheimer: "We are first and foremost social animals. We are born and socialized into tribes we now call nations."
16:20 I think there's a hole in Pinker's attempt to objectively define progress though human flourishing. He lists a number of phenomena that most of us would by themselves define as positive, but the questions still remain: 1) who actually benefits? 2) at what cost? 3) in what timeframe?
Regarding timeframe human society is undergoing a rapid change, it is yet to be determined what effects this change will have in the long term. For example if the end result of these changes were to be a nuclear world war or social collapse, I wouldn't call the process that led to this result 'progress' no matter how the process might have seemed like positive at one point. This is still yet to be decided.
Regarding the cost alone there are many societies and individuals who would argue that even the human flourishing increase, that Pinker cites, is not worth the ecological unsustainability, loss of cultural distinctiveness, subordination of entire societies to a foreign power, unsustainable demography and virtually endless plethora of other reasons.
For this reason I really have to agree with Mearsheimer here, people don't agree on first principles and what might seem as obvious first principle to you gets a lot more complicated and subjective once you encounter a different viewpoint, different set of values in a different culture.
Interesting. Your reasoning about the timeframe issue reminds me of the Chinese proverb about the old man who lost his horse. In that case, when do you think it would be appropriate to evaluate whether Enlightenment ideals have lead to progress? 50 years? 200?
Regarding your first question, Pinker argues that the vast majority of the world has benefited from the fruits of the Enlightenment (e.g starting from 3:50 worldwide life expectancy, child mortality, famine, extreme poverty, etc., since 1700/1800s). I wonder if you disagree with this?
I'm also curious: what are specific examples of first principles in disagreement?
A feel a big flaw in Pinker's work is that he cherry picks timescales to suit his purposes. For instance, talking about ethnic tolerance within countries improving doesn't take into account the historical evidence that say tolerance of different religions in say Eastern countries was sometimes much better than at present, say pre-World War 2 Middle East compared to currently. In fact, the regression in ethnic tolerance in many countries outside the West has been precisely linked to antagonistic and destructive Western foreign policy.
True, but Pinker doesn’t focus on the exceptions as much as the rule. The general trend is not cherry picked. Exceptions to the trend are.
Mearsheimer does plenty of his own cherry-picking.
Modern ethnic intolerance in the middle east is the result of the liberal enlightenment, where the individual cares about himself and dosent believe in the liberation but in the exploitation of people further away from his circle.
@@grahammcrae4277That's my point...his very framing and cherry picking creates systemic confirmation bias. He is far far from an expert on most of the stuff he pronounces upon. He is a congnitive psychologist and linguistic. Not a historian, not an ecologist, not a sociologist, etc. And it shows.
Lo vedado en la narrativa contra occidente supone el objetivo de su destrucción. El materialismo histórico no es generalización
I notice Mearsheimer is careful not to make statements of fallacy when he is debating someone that can push back.
John Mearsheimer argues from "what is" and Steven Pinker argues from "what should be".
Yup.
His tribalism in government example is a great one.
My mind immediately went to my time living in Abu Dhabi. The government absolutely prioritizes the locals, but that doesn't mean that nobody else is served or that anyone else is miserable because of it. It is far from perfect, but it isn't a revolution waiting to happen either.
Well said 👏🏾
Accurately observed.
Yes, well observed. 'Is' and 'ought' and the huge intellctual and logical chasm between both concepts. Very human to make this mistake though. The older I get, it's not that I become more conservative rather it is I become more pragmatic about what is possible given the 'fixed' position of human nature and how susceptible we are to human passions. Mearsheimer is closer to that position.
Pinker’s liberalism is more akin to a primitive religion than a sophisticated system of thought. He just repeats the same mantras in all these “debates” and never properly engages with the other side. I could feel John getting a bit frustrated with this.
22:12 “The more you try to formulate alternatives to Enlightenment ideals, the better they look”
This is the heart of Pinker’s point, that the other options are not only worse, they have been far, far worse. And where John says at 18:45 “that’s so obvious to not even be interesting” regarding child deaths, Steven responds saying those ARE first principles but we didn’t get to hear John’s response (given that that just flawed his argument). Other first principles outlined in his book Enlightenment Now are that we virtually all agree that some things are better than others: life over death, health over sickness, happiness over suffering, abundance over poverty, peace over war, knowledge over ignorance and superstition, and several more
“You didn’t need the Enlightenment to produce that…” was the highlight for me
Agree, same can be said about "progress" in materialistic point of view (extreme poverty is no more etc.)
@@Zzzk155 100%
The same for me.
lol, immediate came to comment this. "BUT THE ENLIGHTENMENT TAUGHT US THAT DEAD BABIES WAS BAD!!!"
An example would be China has a higher life expectancy than the US and is by far safer for its citizens than the US.
But I don't think anyone would think China is more "Enlightened" than the US.
Pre Enlightenment people would’ve agreed on basic needs like their children not dying. Don’t understand Pinker claiming those as enlightenment ideals. Industrialised society means those needs easier to meet now.
Well observed.
Industrialization would be impossible without the wisdom from the enlightenment.
@@fullfildreamz Which specific tenets of it? I am just curious….reason and science. I don’t think any serious nation today is against those tenets.
Great work, Prof. M!
John and Steve are two of my favorite public intellectuals. "The Blank Slate" and "The Tragedy of Gret Power Politics" are two of my favorite books. However, I tend to agree more with John than Steve lately. As far as this debate goes, both have valid points and are correct from different perspectives. Here is how I would summarize it: since questions of moral and political disagreement are infinitely divisible, both can be true that there has been progress (at least in part attributable to enlightenment ideas), but the amount of disagreement is not decreasing significantly because more and more new questions arise, or finer and finer details of existing questions are elevated to important status.
I think John's overall point isn't that progress isn't being made, but it's in how Pinker defines progress which is problematic. Science/technology is what's responsible for the progress Pinker is referring to.
@@KarlRobespierre That's right, I guess. Now science/technology accounts to technical and cognitive, not necessarily moral. Some of the very same scientific and technological breakthroughs that allowed the increase in human life expectancy, on the one hand, have also turned modern warfare much more deadly than those more frequent (but far less lethal) wars of the past. Just think of radiation therapy and the nuclear bomb.
But nobody said "the amount of disagreement is decreasing". Disagreement is as vibrant as ever, that's why we use democracy to sum the collective vote to make political decisions. Thats what we aspire towards at least.
Well, I said it ... But what is discussed is at a different level of analysis than how to make "political decisions"@@beatthebag
Causal inference is tricky business. Claiming "is not this but that" categorically on big historical outcomes is not a serious argument; especially in this case, since Pinker addresses this issue in his writings @@KarlRobespierre
Bravo. Both interesting and important. Thanks for bringing this to your audience.
These two should do a more in depth debate in this. I have so many unanswered questions. I feel like they were just getting started.
At 22:30 Steven Pinker gives a good display of how incredibly enmeshed he is in his own western ideas of what a reasonable person would believe. There are plenty of people from less individualistic non-western cultures who will make reason-based arguments that arranged marriage is better than a marriage of choice. Here’s a quick one: young people make choices for partners that are based on ephemeral attractions to one another that do not last. Therefore, their parents with their fully developed brains and their greater amount of life experience are better off choosing their partners based on less interesting, but more important factors.
Its the arranged marriages with under aged brides that are a problem."According to the Shari'ah, if a girl is a minor (did not attain puberty), she may be given in marriage by her father. When she attains puberty, she has the right to maintain the marriage or discontinue the marriage. There is no age limit to be intimate with one's wife even if she is a minor.
I heard what he was saying there not as stating there aren't reason-based arguments for compulsory church / arranged marriage, but that you will have a hard time convincing people who are already individualistic to subordinate their desires to the greater good. If I'm right, he was refuting his own thesis in that moment.
1) Arranged marriages are not based on reason, but on cultural tradition(s) and hierarchy. 2)Arranged marriages do not allow an individual to reason or at least choose. 3) All thinking is clearly not reasoned thinking. Ideological thinking, confirmation bias is not reasoned thinking.
@@sean5768 the question is what vector do you pin "human flourishing" on? Do you pin it on (to offer just two of the possibly numerous vectors) 1. the durability and functionality of the marriage pact (ie does it persist or crash and burn?) or 2. do you pin it on sovereign individualistic rights (ie my agency in wearing the success and failures of my personal decisions)..... which brings us back to the Q of "what is it that one is standing on when one is talking of liberalism?" since it doesn't appear to be neutral territory (I think that's one of the key offerings of Meirsheimer's offensive realism : in an anarchistic system (ie system that levels out into an absence of a hierarchy) there is no place to stand that is neutral territory.
. "Human flourishing" is not neutral or automatically consensus establishing since it can be intersected in various conflicting ways. I am not sure that Pinker could fully appreciate this point, since he seemed to only touch on weak forms of the argument (such as rhetorically asking whether we do or do not have a consensus that killing children is bad).
@kanup5141 there may not be a consensus for human flourishing but the majority of migration in the world is to countries with liberal values in the West. Comparatively few people choose to go to autocracies or otherwise illiberal countries. And it's not just about economic opportunities in the West.
Knowledge & understanding do not transfer from one generation to another without education. Without these wisdom or right action is not possible.
I think the problem with Pinker's argument is the assumption that the spread of liberalism comes about because of the rational strength (truth) of the idea itself, rather than its spread being as a consequence of the geopolitical power of the first Europe, then the US. After all, unless you have oil, or perform some other necessary regional function, the US is going to insist that you move towards liberal capitalist democracy. Put it this way, does the Chinese president dress like a European Victorian because of the truth of the outfit, or because that is how one must dress in order to be taken seriously in a Western dominated world? The Greek world also became democratic for the brief moment that Athens was a regional hegemon. It is far more likely that liberalism, at least on a global scale, is only a moment in history.
I don't think Pinker understands what a moral principle is, or why disagreement about first principles means that progress isn't such an obvious trend in history. He seems to think the disagreement about first principles that JM keeps bringing up are analogous to holding different opinions, when they are in fact the basis from which we reason *to* moral conclusions. Pinker's 'proof' that we have seen progress in human history is nothing more than a bundle of technological, scientific (in the broadest sense of the term), and political changes thrown together as if this amounted to something. His understanding of moral disputes, as well as his grasp of the history of science-which he presents as an upward progression-is incredibly shallow. Let's not even talk about his poor grasp of politics and history.
In the end, all Pinker is saying is that life has gotten more comfortable for more people. The fact that he can't tell that that doesn't necessarily mean moral and political progress is astounding.
Edit: as others have pointed out, Pinker doesn't acknowledge the vast and incalculable amount of violence required to sustain the comfortable lifestyle that modern capitalist countries can provide for *some* of their citizens.
What violence does capitalism require to achieve its success? I'm not following
Would you mind giving an example of a moral first principle, and a dispute as such? Searching for definitions result in Enlightenment terms, which obviously doesn't clarify your point.
Pinker can’t think beyond the narrow life experiences of the liberal bourgeoisie he is a member of. It’s almost embarrassing hearing him repeat the same tired old mantras and not properly engage with his opponent’s arguments. Literally no one could believe Pinker won this.
@EarlofSedgewick Sure, I think there are pretty common moral principles such as murder being wrong, or theft being wrong. These are common enough across multiple cultures, epochs and political communities. But what I think JM is trying to tease out is that there exist other first principles that people hold just as dearly that are not commonly agreed on. God being the moral arbiter is a good example. Such a principle will lead you to reason differently and to reach different conclusions. Now, in the realm of science and academia more broadly disagreement is largely inconsequential. But in the realm of politics, disagreement could potentially become existential. And a lot of these disagreements stem from deeply held convictions (first principles) that condition the reasoning process of any given person or group. This conflict of first principles makes any kind of moral and political progress extremely difficult, and not nearly as obvious as Pinker believes.
@@GaariyeJ Quite, but even if two parties hold every moral principle in common they could still go to war if their interests are fundamentally in opposition i.e. they both have a "rational" belief in wanting to maximize their wealth yet are in a struggle to control a valuable resource e.g. oil. What type of "consensus" or "universal truth" is available or applicable in such zero sum cases - answer: NONE.
It would have been good to cross examine the data points that Steven provided. The way that data is selected and interpreted is very important and can lead to varying conclusions.
I want to ask anybody commenting here that thinks Pinker is shallow or Maerheimer won the debate to please read Steven Pinker's book. I think it is such an outstanding book that encomposses so much historic evidence. Maerheimer is a very interesting thinker as well but I think his Realism school of thoughts fails due to its simplistic assumptions about the way states operate. He would himself also acknowledge that his theories are simplifications (because otherwise it would be very hard to model IR), but I think that in general the field of IR is too narrow to fully comprehend human progress. Pinker draws upon a large body of literature and has a lot of historic perspective which is really missing in today's debate. I think the point Pinker didn't make but what he should have made more clearly is that Maersheimers assumption, that we cannot agree on first principles, might be a true at any time but historically we have come to agree on A LOT of first principles (freedom of speech etc.). THis is the true byproduct of the enlightenment. There will always be fights and there will also be people who do not subscribe to enlightenment values and historically, these people have been at the losing end. Anti-enlightenment ideologies are always less attractive to societies. Of course it is hard to determine what is enlightenment and anti-enlightenment.
I find Mearsheimer's use of "unfettered reason" a tip off to what he really thinks. And commenters in agreement with him seem to pine for a more primitive time.
I don’t intend to be too narrow minded by this observation, but misspelling Prof Mearsheimer’s name 3x sorta detracts from what otherwise might be an interesting comment.
@@smashedhulk8492 depends on what you consider primitive beyond the obvious. Never before in humanity's history have more people created lives irresponsibly and without love😓
This begs the question though. If you just say the things that win out are enlightenment, and that enlightenment is hard to determine in the moment, you just create a meaningless definition of the word that self-enforces based on whatever has happened. The free speech example is particularly fun because free speech dropped a lot in China (starting in 1989 is interesting) and China alone has as many people as the entire first world. The middle east isn't looking too great there either lately - certainly much worse in Iran than before. There are other recent examples. Now if India decided to do the same thing would we now consider state censorship to be 'enlightened' because it's the direction the global population is progressing?
Is the move towards democratic systems that are less and less accountable to the needs of their people and basically decided by billion dollar ad campaigns funded by corporate lobbyists the next step in enlightenment's direction, because I really don't think we're gonna get off that particular train.
Great respectful debate
What a time to mention the example “ letting children die”
Indeed. The countries championing enlightenment are silent about the amount of suffering happening in Gaza, and the country leading the liberal world is actually sponsoring it.
This shows that liberalism is mainly used as a glitter to cover the ugly face of colonialism and the hegemony of the west. It's like how the conquistadors used Christianity to cover the conquest of the Americas.
***liberals***
@@czargs A zygote isn’t a child, bud. Not even conservatives believe that. The OC was talking about Israel’s massacring of 10,000 children, and climbing.
Well said. Liberal minds have been shown to be believers in mythical fantasyland and are completely out of touch with reality. Pinker’s affirmation of free speech made me laugh out loud considering the US government was just charged by the court system with the worst violations of free speech in modern history re the twitter files.
What are you talking about. A two week old fetes has as many cells as a fly’s brain. It yet is not a “child”.
Pitting Mearsheimer against Pinker is like pitting a grizzly against a blueberry muffin…
And the muffin won.
@@grahammcrae4277 Yeah, my ass.
@@BrotherAlyx you don’t see an improvement in human relations? Lifespan? Ability to co-habitate?
@@grahammcrae4277 Most of us in the West see that (not sure about the future of it) but the point is that living longer and not shorter is not something that the Enlightenment produced. As Mearsheimer said: you don't need the Elightenment to figure out that babies shouldn't die. You had medicine and science and good moral reasoning long before the Enlightenment - or democracy.
@@januspatermagnus I’d like to see a chart showing birth mortality prior and after the enlightenment. Maybe there was an understanding of the value of life but I suspect religious dogma meant two things; first, you’d still wish death upon enemies, big and small. Second, you’d recognize the tragedy of child mortality but chalk it up to God’s will. (God’s plan, as Drake would say..) Enlightenment said bs to that.
Stephen speaks about tribalism while being tribal
Any evidence that’s he’s tribal ? How ?
The key thing to remember about the Enlightenment was the debate. Often (but not always) a consensus emerged, but the philosophes debated among themselves.
Big thanks to everyone whose efforts went into providing these 2 videos. Great discussion.
Really nice chat there, many thanks!
We should try to define the enlightenment as a practical concept, because nationalism was a enlightenment idea as opposed to reactionary monarchies that haven't produced rational borders. As an example 1848 revolutions where nationalistic and enlightened as opposed to reactionary monarchies. If we don't define basic concept's we never gett a clear conclusion. Great debate, it was great honor to listen to it.
And those very nation states were the necessary condition making two world wars possible.
Kant's definition in "Was ist Aufklärung?" (What is Enlightenment?) is a classic. In it he recalls Horace's "Sapere Aude!" (Dare to know!) and defines Enlightenment as man's emergence from his immaturity. It is resolve and courage to use your understanding (once you have it) without guidance from others.
Mearsheimer won this argument, just like he correctly predicted Ukraine's fate almost a decade ago
i didn't see won or lost as outcomes to the debate.
Hard to lose against Pinker, and his weird cherry picked statistics to uphold liberal capitalism and its assault on the global south.
but that doesn't take away from Mearsheimer. The Realist position trumps liberals every time!
ya, like he predicted last yr's full out invasion of ukraine by putin - give us a break
What's the argument? Lol.
Why does Pinker deduce that an alternative to the Enlightenment would mean abandoning reason? This argumentation line is clearly misleading and involves the false dilemma fallacy. As far as I know, the ancient Greeks were not in the Enlightenment age, but they practiced reason, the same with the Romans, the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians, the Chinese, etc. ... that is not the point of the discussion, the point of the discussion is that by putting only science on the pedestal (i.e. unfettered reason), it implicitly assumes that morality will magically emerge from the science, and that will lead to a better society .. so, the alternative to Enlightenment is to think about what else needs to be put on the pedestal besides science, so that this something imposes control over the excesses of reason (i.e. unfettered reason) ..
I can not, for the life of me, figure out what Mearshimer counts as “progress” or even wtf he means as “first principles”. 😵💫
Hmm , would be improvement on things everybody on earth think are good for humankind in adition to things we all agree are good for pets for example . I have issues with misleading labels on reality , old slavery on a good owner is more than comparable to some modern instances of debt slaves - as the free society have suicide rates in excess of 10 to 20 times what slave population experienced .
Yeah I had trouble extracting what exactly John's issue is. Most of his concerns sound like semantic issue's with specific words (like liberal) than anything substantive.
"The good life" is not the same as "life". Basically, what makes life worth living? What should society look like? Beyond the simplistic and self-evident, Pinker has no answers. Within that framework, there has been no progress.
that's where I found myself...was he just stuck on the obvious fact that the world isn't perfect so therefore it isn't better?
"To agree on first principles" means to have a common understanding of what a good life is. Pious life (following religion X), helping others, advancing technology, living self-determined, ...
It's actually very easy to argue against individualism: selfishness is immoral.
"Genocide of other peoples...". I can think of a number of massive genocidal events occuring during the Age of the Enlightenment.
We should also include the democidal regimes of Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China, where millions of people were slaughtered as elites in those countries pursued an unattainable utopia.
@scottbuchanan9426 over a hundred years after the enlightenment but I take your point
@@marcusaurelius9123 You can’t absolve “The Enlightenment” of the horrors of the 19th, 20th and 21st century where corpses are concerned.
If you do, then you’d have to make the same argument that you can’t attribute the technological advancements of the late 19th, 20th and 21st century to the enlightenment as they happened centuries later.
You can’t have it both ways.
@@marcusaurelius9123 Yes, but the genocides and democides I'm talking about occurred in an age that was ostensibly shaped by Enlightenment values. That's the key point.
"My argument is you need a consensus to get progress." This couldn't be any more obviously false. You might as well argue that you need consensus to elect a leader, or you need consensus to enact legislation. Consensus is impossible at the scale of nations, and yet progress is self-evident, in all the statistics cited by John's opponent, and by the most cursory observation.
Mearsheimer severely misunderstands Pinker's position. Pinker never argues that we live in a utopia where everyone agrees about everything and no one fights. He only says that we agree on more and fight less than we used to. The question is about moral progress, not moral perfection.
Mearsheimer also argues that because reasonable people disagree, reason does not lead to truth. That only follows if you believe that two contradictory ideas can both be true (there is no truth) or that reason cannot discover truth (you believe in the supernatural). It's more likely that people are simply less reasonable than they appear.
Is there truth, when it comes to first principles? I'd argue there isn't, but even if we lean on a concept like evolution, which in my eyes is the closest we can get; we're only moving further away from the natural way of things. And that has nothing to do with enlightenment: it has to do with technology.
Is that true anyway. Individuals in Western countries are at loggerheads on many important matters. Political parties move to the right with a rising body count on their watch. Western interference - military, financial thro' the World Bank/IMF - is pushing millions into turmoil and poverty. Then there are resource wars. As for the Enlightenment, this ignores say Confucianism. Meanwhile, all that liberal democracy has brought us to massive overexploitation of the natural world and climate breakdown. I'll go for realism with a big dash of ecology and physics.
"He only says that we agree on more and fight less than we used to. ". That depends on what exactly you call a 'fight', how granular you measure it, and *where* you fight - on your own patch of turf or elsewhere and what that will cost (to yourself) and unnamed others). When all this is taken into account historically very little remains as evidence on Pinker's side.
Exactly, in the end humans are the same as they always were and until we enter a transhumanist future (god forbid) it'll stay that way @@k2024-b8n
But the argument isn't about Utopia, it's about whether or not the enlightenment is the primary engine of progress and morality. Pinker and people of his mindset credit the enlightenment with appreciation of reason, which to a large extent it was, but it wasn't the first instance of it.
The enlightenment did play a role in Western progress, but there were much stronger factors in Western world dominance. Narrowness of the Atlantic gave Europe access to rich lands peopled with stone-aged cultures and extreme vulnerability to disease. The ability of some European kingdoms to rape those lands incentivized other Europeans to target the supply lines for plunder, and eventually to take part in the direct exploitation of those lands and peoples directly. This dynamic, along with the Protestant reformation and the Catholic response to it, motivated weapons development at a much higher rate than anywhere else in the world.
The enlightened British, Dutch, French, and Americans were all slave-holding societies who created racist and exploitative colonial empires, as did the less enlightenment-associated Russians. They all created two-tier empires based on a ruling nation-state that promoted enlightenment philosophy among those within the privileged nationality but exploited all the imperial subjects outside of it, often using a divide and rule strategy. The fate of less nationalistic empires: Chinese, Persian, and Ottoman, lost ground not because they were unattached to enlightenment philosophy, but because the industrial revolution occurred outside their realms, and because their military investment wasn't fueled by African slaves and American gold.
Is the industrial revolution a child of the enlightenment? I would argue that to some degree it is. The scientific method is, and that is not insignificant, but good science had been taking place long before. And even the scientific method can be stifling if it's made into an exclusive dogma. Investment in research possible because of the fruits of exploitation, the need to compete against fellow exploiters, and the development of an economic class of men with time and personal fortunes built on exploitation created the environment that produced the harnessing of steam.
problems in need of resolution are far more likely to be pragmatical rather than ideological, or so I think.
Pinker’s progress doesn’t come from the enlightenment but from the Industrial Revolution.
It applies mostly to the global north and is built up on the backs of the global south which is heavily exploited (like the Industrial Revolution).
It is also built upon the foundation that nature’s resources are unlimited and that nature’s wellbeing is unimportant. (Extreme exploitation)
Hence climate change, species extinction, deforestation, water shortage, wide spread pollution etc.
The intense and incredible evilness that this system creates is what Pinker champions. Hence he is evil to.
Fossil fuel is a big factor in this. One barrel of oil should be equal to 4.5.years of a mans work. We use fossil fuel equal to 500.billion peoples work. No, wonder that slavery went away. The same with food. Prior to the green revolution you put 1. kcal of work into farming and took 10.kcal out. Now you put 19.kcal into farming and take 1.kcal out. Those kcal you put in is fossil fuel. So, a vacuum of abundance of cheap energy have reduced hunger and conflicts. We should run out of cheap energy within the next 20.years and see increases in prices of 2-300% in real terms. Let's see how that world will look like.
@@Thorsted67 slavery did not go away. Sadly.
The technology that began in the industrial revolution and continued through the 20th century has greatly reduced hard manual labor requirements and will continue to.
I wish more people had your insight. liberal education wants us to think it’s the superior value & not the ‘unfortunate’ exploitation that accompanied it at every step
It seems to me that there is no reason to think that extreme exploitation would not occur by applying Mearshimer's offensive realism either. Can anyone weigh in on this, I'm barely familiar with his work.
It seems to me that Mearshimer believes relative stability ("political/moral progress") is achieved by regional hegemons establishing their positions, and then being limited by, predominantly, geography and economy. Nothing about this would hint at even a future situation where exploitation of resources is reduced.
I agree with your assessment of the problematic founding principles of liberalism believing in unlimited resources. However, if we understand and adhere to liberal ideals, it would be rational to prioritise sustainable energy sources so as to engineer our situation to fit the ideals.
I'm not claiming this has happened or will necessarily work because "it is good". I'm responding to your claim that he is evil, because liberal ideals are evil, because humans will exploit their situation in order to maximise survival. Mearshimer's whole theory rests on the idea that human political organisations will and should maximize their own power in order to become the hegemon. That doesn't happen without resource exploitation and foreign policy/economic dominance.
Open to clarification though.
Amazing conversations. Thank you.
My question is, why should poverty be reduced as an enlightenment value? All human communities and individuals worldwide, across time and place, would have liked to have more things to eat. As I reached here, John asked this question. So, my question is pointless.
Totally agree! Nothing to do with Enlightenment values.
Well, I think the reduction of poverty he links more to the application of enlightenment values. For example, a liberal society might be more inclined to feed people.
Either way, the role of enlightenment values is a fairy tale. The reduction of hunger isn't because people have been able to discuss and have decided to feed each other -- it's because of a series of complicated events driven forward by technology.
yes, history is full with examples - all the way back to the neolithic - where new forms of globalizations and food sources etc led to 'progress' for more people etc without any 'philosophical' underpinnings. One could argue that such philosophical and legal 'underpinnings' are nothing more than societal expressions of larger demographic processes: our efforts to create the illusion that we are 'making decisions' or are 'in charge' while most of us actually are not, most of the time.
I think his point was that reducing ‘World Hunger’ is very much a product of enlightenment thinking. Conceiving of a better future for humanity is part of that strain of thought.
@@johnmartin4233 Thats a fair point
Wonderful gentlemanly debate ❤❤❤
Amazed at what a shallow thinker Pinker actually is.
His metric for what is good and what makes for progress are largely surface level things. His examples are also incredibly narrow even when they would count as progress.
Can't spell "Liberal" w/out "L"
it's always been a paper king to me
@@ArtOfTheProblem Paper king?
of no substance@@georgechristiansen6785
@@georgechristiansen6785 Paper tiger?
4:42 lets see
One is a political scientist, the other is a technocrat.
Stephen is Mustafa Mond
@@seanmoran2743 Yes, A brave new world where anxiety can be calmed with a pill.
He is a psychologist, not a psychiatrist.
@@Marty72
Good discussion, but disappointed that they didn't touch up on some concrete yet current examples that they disagree in, e.g., the war in Ukraine or the one in the middle East.
They should do a third round to address that.
Thank you for hosting and sharing this very informative discussion. Having just finished listening to an interview with Professor Robert Sapolsky, it would be illuminating to add to this debate his theory that man lacks free will. I wonder how that would affect the conclusions of each debater?
People like that confuse free will with “my ego initiates every move I make.” But you are not just your mind. And the fact that an outside observer can see where you’re headed doesn’t mean you didn’t choose to head there.
Asumir la individualidad no supone negar la existencia de una nación, ni el coexistir en una infraestructura social. No son categorías dialécticas individuo y nación contrapuestas para la supremacia de una sobre otra. Steve entiende que negar al inviduo es negar la propia naturaleza y por ende la infraestructura social.
I support John's arguments, and probably could put the discussion on first principles while we have general agreement of "not having young children dying", there is much less consensus by nations, religions and cultures on death (e.g. capital punishment) or life (e.g. abortion). Also yes, I would agree we are social first, then individuals, especially what we can see in Asia. Most of Asia live in tribes (unique groups of ethnic, cultures, language, religion, and history), with exception of Singapore & Malaysia, most of these nations are like mega tribes with foreigners there... say Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, even HK.
Lastly I would think Steven's has very narrow view section of the world population, probably Western Europe and Anglo Saxon nations, including US. Not so much rest of the world. Think most of the world follows collectivism instead of individualism which is more of Western, liberal ideals. Overall is very interesting discussion.
Great discussion! Interesting reflection on Israel by Steven at 9:10.
10:50 Welp, there goes my respect for this guy. Still think his geopolitical arguments are better reasoned out than Pinker’s more ideological ones, but here (in part 2) they seem to be talking past one another. They need to step back and more clearly define their terms and positions, but I get it, sometimes you get caught up in the moment and it becomes a fencing match.
His anti-white/anti-Christian opinion aside(which could be more rhetorical/defensive than anything), Mearsheimer is 100% correct. The failure of the enlightenment/liberal/libertarian world-view is that it presupposes the existence and permanence of "society"(IE the state). The truth is, every last aspect of the "social-contract" theory is false. The only thing that sustains "liberalism" is the preponderance of Western/American power. If America was weak, it could be easily divide and ruled/balkanized like other weak multiethnic states. Human-nature is tribalism. Which Pinker admits begrudgingly, and Mearsheimer acknowledges but never follows to its logical conclusion because he treats the state as essentially inviolable.
Happy to defend Pinker’s arguments here, if you’d like to state his specific position and lay out criticisms concisely. I’ll try to engage with all the other comments too. Happy debating, people!
@5m5tj5wgsure! At 5:03 John says “My argument is you need a consensus for progress, and what we’re talking about here - the deep ended variable, so to speak - is moral and political progress”. He later hand waves away things like the decrease in child deaths as too obvious to be interesting to moral progress, despite there actually being a consensus on this. So, by ‘deep ended variable’, I think John is focused on the smaller areas of ‘the good life’ that we will inevitably disagree on and Steven is emphasising the large areas that we already have widespread agreement (and that perhaps John isn’t acknowledging). But I think John is mistaken because we have progressed incredibly far already (as detailed in many of Steven’s books), and I think John’s flawed criticism is that we’ll never reach a consensus utopia
you cant really argue that marxism isnt a enlightenment philosophy. marxism comes out of the post enlightenment world, and is far more liberal than capitalism. it is also completely materialist, whereas capitalism depends on quasi spiritual ideas like freewill. the best critique of marx is that it is too material, and doesnt take the unprovable human soul into account. what marx illustrated was that the vast majority of people are not free in the capitalist system. there are masters, ie the owners of capital which is an extremely small percentage of the population and servants the 99% that make up labor who are controlled and exploited. his attempt was mostly to critique his current system and he spent far less time trying to broadly think (speculate) of a system in which people were totally free.
Steve Pinker puts one straw man after another. Even when I believe that his ideals are worth pursuing, I think he relies, for his defense, on a shallow, localistic notion of rationalism, rather than a dialectical one. That means he assumes context-free individual rationality to be a solid point of departure, without realizing that, even when this notion is one of the greatest emancipatory achievements of humanity, an individual’s rationality cannot be understood without historical context, lest it cause irrationality.
In fact, at the end, we realize that his context-free definition is not even actually the case because he, tacitly or not so much, assumes the Western liberal notion as the superior way. This forces John Mearsheimer to remind him that we do not need enlightenment to produce certain universal values, which have been proven to exist even before Western dominance. In the end, Pinker´s defense produces the shallow Eurocentric liberal triumphalism that has created a sad counterreaction to the set of great values that he meant to defend. Considering the state of the world today, and particularly the cultural debates taking place within the West, but also beyond, it is hard to escape the conclusion that his point of view has been counterproductive to his own, very commendable, goals.
On the argument that " success of liberalism can be seen by how many societies accept the notions of liberal values". isn't the fact that the most powerful societies are liberal societies since WW2?
Imagine if Soviets were more powerful than collective West. Would the world still be swayed by liberal values like past few decades?
And isn't liberalism forced on other societies by West using their might of economy, military and culture-political systems?
Sad to say that Harvard is declining as an institution is true. I’m not too impressed with the argument that humans have progressed in the last century morally. We are all conditioned to certain social norms in different societies based on cultural differences. So to say we as human are enlightened in the past 100 years is ludicrous with the saying that history repeat’s itself. The Anglo Saxon race or the so called collective West may have just improved in the past 80 years in their own point of view but have definitely regressed for the past two decades due to power and domination. The alleviation of extreme poverty is achieved by one country alone which is China that did it for over 800 million of it’s citizens. Look at the West especially USA, the homelessness are increasing by the day and life expectancy has declined. To say you Americans live in a democracy is a joke.
Ok. I wonder if JM was one of Tetlock’s subjects. I wonder about his Brier score.
It seems to me that Steven and John have different definitions of “progress”. For me, mearsheimers definition is extremely narrow, so much so that of course his progress is not possible. Pinkers definition is much looser, basically the core is that people are fatter, live longer, less disease and more knowledge and better technology, which it sounds like mearsheimer would agree with.
Yeah I had a hard time understanding what exactly John's position was. It sounds like he just doesn't like the word "liberal".
@@beatthebag it's actually simple - John's point is that the so-called measures of progress that Steven relies on are absolutely orthogonal to the Enlightenment. Those things do not require the moral/political implications of the Enlightenment to occur, just the scientific aspects. On the moral and political front, there hasn't been that much progress really.
Steve focuses on the recipe, and John says the ingredients are not there. Reasoning is a tool and it can be used with bias, resulting in sophistry. In a liberal society that is based on "the invisible hand" [pursuit of self interest = the best for society ... really?], that is hardly questionable. Let's make clear what concepts we consider as "untouchable".
I believe that THE MAIN human motivator is the desire to not feel inferior to others. This is why we have rules of courtesy and good manners. If we add the idea that unity of individuals makes a greater force, then we have tribalism, which can take the form of an ethnic group, political party, minority group, etc. This is the root of irrationality. Uneducated individuals prefer the benefits they can get by just belonging to a group, than the overall correctness of the system if they were rational ... and then they have to face the corruption within their group.
The population needs to understand that only with education and critical thinking they can control their destinies better.
John definitely has a viable point here!
Excellent discussion. Loads of love to both speakers and thanks to the organizers.
The point is have
we all - Again I’ll repeat have we All Reach a consensus on basic principles ,
and the fact is that we have not !!!!
just for example take the war in Israel With the Palestinians ???
take the war in Ukraine ????
Take the strong division that we have here in the United States in terms of domestic policy..
have we come to an agreement on basic moral principles And policy ?
the answer is no !
yes we are in a better place in certain areas of the world but But at the same time there
been more human hunger and
poverty than any time in human history because there’s just more people In the planet going on 7/9 billion
yeah there’s a lot of people who are not in poverty and have access to healthcare and food clean
water education
but that has nothing to do with the fact that The majority of the world agree on basic principles ,political Ideology
and Foreign and domestic policy.
I would also add that the progress that has been made has to do with the advancements of technology!
And NOT
That we all agree on basic or moral principles!!!
Also
Steven Pinker doesn’t take consideration is that today we have countries that have thousands of nuclear Weapons that could end human civilization.
I think Steven Pinker is Just wrong !!!!!
But it’s fascinating that he continues to argue with some basic points that do not account for the entire truth !!
Not only that but he misses the basics point!
I’m beginning to question if maybe there are powerful corporations out there that give him money to argue in this way..
John Mearsheimer was Completely on point!
Thank you!
When discussing reasoning and rational thinking, it's essential to highlight one figure : Ludwig Wittgenstein. He initially believed he had achieved the Unify -field of logical reasoning, associating himself with the "King of Science" and embracing retirement in rural Austria. However, realizing his mistake, he reemerged to teach in Cambridge, acknowledging that philosophy doesn't conform to linguistic reasoning.
The first tenet of enlightenment underscores the freedom to debate. Seeking consensus doesn't always yield the desired outcome. Importantly, ideologies like realism or communism aren't scientific; creating an atomic bomb involves scientific principles, but its use raises moral and political reasoning issues.
In ancient Chinese philosophy, the concept of "Heaven and Body as One" suggests a unity of reasoning. Scientifically proving the oneness of Heaven and Body is challenging. Linguistically, we advocate respecting nature-creatures, trees, flowers, water, sun, and moon-as equals to humans. This expression of reasoning is the essence of Enlightenment .
Despite disagreements between individuals like John and Steve, the beauty of America lies in respecting the freedom of debate. Period.
Mearsheimers naming of his basis as realism is fulminantly tendentious - since it implies that opposing ideas are by definition unrealistic.
they are
When he speaks about we who have not expanded the franchise who? is he referring to?
Pinker makes the mistake to think that the more science the more moral a society will be. History shows this is not the case.
It is clear that looking back from this point, society has been going backwards since late 2000s. Science has been more advanced than any point in history, does not mean a damn thing in morality.
For example, China values science to make technical progress but is hugely immoral.
This is what I think.What we have learned and experienced so far,should be passed down to our youngsters free of any charge.❤ Love to my human race
Pinker keeps saying but we have more money we have more technology.
John keeps pointing out that's not what we are talking about.
@Charlie-nf1nw no, John points out the question is about meaningful human life which can only be defined by extent & quality of human connection but pinker keeps talking about the wealth & technology available to the top .01% of the elite. John keeps saying life is connection and that isn't improving it is declining and Pinker keeps saying but I got to fly to the mossad island of child prostitutes on a g7 oh and you should see the size of my tv!!
At 4 minutes JM does not take up the challenge SP laid down.
After listening to this it doesn't sound like John addresses the Pinker guys points very well. Steven pinker responded to john with detail but john never really responded directly. He kept changing the subject or telling steven what steven thought instead of responding to what steven just said.
Well said, poking holes in good ideas does not, in itself, produce a good idea.
As a common man reaction to these esteemed thinkers discussion, it seems that Pinker had a broad overview of the effects of the enlightenment that appear reasonable and that John M was disadvantaged by a narrow attack that never addressed the big picture of why most Westerners would agree the world has progressed since the 1700’s. One possible counter argument to Pinker’s conclusion is that if the world ends up in a thermonuclear war in next few decades, which seems quite plausible, what effect would that have on his position?
@@jimosborne2 Most Westerners agree there has been progress since the 1700s because most Westerners have been indoctrinated to believe that.
You're a patient man Steven - cheers
Finally! Mearsheimer at the end comes up with the key point: reason is limited. The problem with the enlightenment was that the French Revolution, the slaughter of the aristocracy and brutal tyranny under Napoleon could all be justified on Enlightenment principles.
no, that's conplete bullshit
@cocoacrispy7802 very truthful analysis
Quid est veritas?
Why is the only 2 possibilities, liberal or autocracy? and isnt that what Mearsheimer is trying to discuss?
I don’t believe Pinker ever pondered that there are irrational things that can be advantageous. For average humans, there are a number of functional illusions that undoubtedly have advantages and also certain hazards: The natural propensity for religiosity e.g. Him and Dawkins would probably argue that it is a good thing that the average person in the west is no longer religious, but rapidly declining birth rates could serve to argue the contrary. Patriotism is another one of these functional illusions that are very unfortunate to lose in a culture that wants to self sustain. What if average people also “got over” or ahead of themselves when it comes to these functional illusions: Free Will and love… what then Mr. Pinker? Is that what is further down the line of “Enlightenment”? Can you imagine a world where people no longer experience free will and love? Is that a human place?
Pinker is more correct. Due to the Enlightenment and several ‘mini enlightenments’ prior, we’ve learn how to use reason correctly, by conjecture and criticism. We’ll never find a perfect society, or ultimate truth, but that’s a good thing. We can always work for it.
the results of such 'enlightened' behaviours has brought the entire world several times to the brink of nuclear holocaust. I refer to the 2 or 3 near misses during the Cuban missile crisis: where decisions taken in some buildings in Washington or Moscow by a few people have determined clearly the fate of billions of human being not involved in any decision making whatsoever. We are in a similar position again wrt to the Climate Catastrophe where the same actors show their complete lack of rationality at a global scale. SAdly, rationality does not save us - as McNamara explains in the very watchable film ' Fog of War'. Today we see that on top of this, a lot of Enlightenment isn't that enlightened (lack of democracy and representation even within countries of the 'global north') and certainly rests on the back of a lot of subjugated people and cultures as sources of energy and capital all over the globe and is just one of those ideologies that big systems like to have while their fundamental workings are anarchic and competitive.
"We'll never find an ultimate truth". Isn't that supposed to be an ultimate truth?
Tribalism isn't even irrational, so what Pinker says at around 10:00 onwards doesn't make sense. It just isn't universalistic. There is nothing irrational about sticking up for your next of kin or the ideals of your group, because it increases group cohesion and allows one to benefit or keep on benefitting from the group. These are tangible, rational benefits.
Now, his argument might be that we should strive for the highest benefit for the most amount of people (utilitarianism), but it isn't even clear what that is. It's largely only clear what it isn't. Besides, it isn't even clear that what he thinks is the highest benefit for all people or what the smallest common denominator is (like the UN charta) as a corset to force all people into, bothering everyone, is a higher benefit, than if all the different people did their own thing as long as they don't bother others (nationalism).
Prof. John E. Dinardo, a Fellow at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, was once asked by a Student, "How do I succeed in my career?" Prof. DiNardo responded, "Find out what a Capitalist Oligarch wants and give it to him." This explains the career of Steven Pinker. He tells Oligarchs want they want to hear and peddles a subjective and myopic view of "The Enlightenment." He also does not understand the writings of Oswald Spengler. He confuses Scientific changes (sustainability) with moral and political progress. Democracy has been in retreat since 2016, Genocides still occur and much more. There is no "trend."
Well said, Pinker seems to possess a fantasy land style of thinking.
@@oldhollywoodbriar Hilarious that you can say this without refuting anything, and as Pinker is the only one to provide data. You're in a cult.
Wow, Pinker just pointed to the area of empirical science as an example as to how he views the geopolitical situation. No no no no!
In this debate John Mearsheimer was simply intellectually superior & demonstrates that with his argumentation. Pinker doesn’t actually engage with John’s critiques and looks like a rabid liberal who isn’t able to question his own presumptions
I am a liberal and I think Pinkers arguments are banal
@@akap_987 I agree, he thinks some graphs & statistics is all it takes to prove worldview
@@faysal8597 I have read his books….no more of his books. He genuinely has zero insights, just rubbish banality being regurgitated on TV every day. I am very disappointed that he is such a lightweight
@@akap_987 he is an agent pushed by the matrix to condition the youth. Thats why he is at Harvard, to legitimize him, & enable him to push ‘liberal mind control’ onto the slave masses.
Is enlightenment a priority for the majority of humanity? Is this conversation an exercise about best argumentation for "showing who's right" ? Does this help viewers taking sides or getting involved in enlightenment if this is, again, a priority ? What is the Priority around?
Mearsheimer's observation that war is not going away is really a simple, brilliant counterargument to the idea of human progress, even if much progress has been made against poverty and disease, etc.
I agree with Steve. We have made progress, but we are not perfect. John is right from a practical perspective but Steve focuses on the big picture to see what we have achieved…
Pinker saying "we had things like slavery, and human sacrifice, genocide of other people" ... currently there are more slaves (human trafficking for sex, labor, organs, etc.) than at any other time, but of course it is not called slavery nor is it official .. how many lives are sacrificed today before the altar of the Money god? a small sample, Oxycontin, arms trafficking, fast food, etc. etc., of course that is not called human sacrifice, it is called profit .. and talking about genocide, the twentieth century could be said to have made genocide an art and taken it to its maximum expression, although it seems that the 21st century is not going to be left behind ..
No, in light of the data it's just plain wrong to claim there is no progress.
@@miraculixxs
What do you call progress?
Not really a counterargument considering that wars have drastically reduced. Pinker has data on his side. Mearsheimer just misleading rhetoric coming from a disproven perspective on international politics. If you want to know why realism isn't really a perspective supported by the evidence, watch Kraut's video "Critique of Realism".
Pinker is very wrong at 4:30, it is important to point out that marxist leninists generally did not propose a centralized command and control system. They made excuses for why one was needed, instead of a marxist system, to protect their countries from hostile geopolitical forces until. And the irony is this substitute system seemed to work about as we as the average country anyway.
“I’m happy that I don’t live in a Christian country. I’m happy that I don’t live in a white country.” And why would you say such foolish things, John? Western civilization, including the country you live in, happily in your words, flourished on the back of Christian ethics. Christianity itself offers the solution to the very problem of elusive moral truths you struggle to find. And why would living in a white country be “bad”? If anything, history, being it cultural or economic, provides plenty of evidence that the opposite is true. And phenotypic characteristics have always served as markers of group identification and bonding in the survival efforts of prehistoric populations. As a realist, you should at least recognize their evolutionary significance.
Yeah, as much as I like most of what John's says, that gave me a puzzled face. It was blind spot for me. Like, has he thought why he said that? There is nothing bad on being in a white country, it's mostly neutral. If I lived in Japan I wouldn't say "I don't like I live in a mostly asian country". Ok, maybe if you are a minority you think about it. But both of the guests are white, so why would they have a problem living in a mostly white country? It would make more sense if he said "I find it more interesting to live in a multicultural country" but that doesn't mean living in a mostly white country is a negative. Why not neutral?
Yes. Tribes and religion creates many of our problems.
So what is Mearsheimer's alternative? Seems like he just complains that things are imperfect and it's difficult to resolve conflict. Not a very insightful or persuasive argument. Pinker doesn't seem to disagree, his point is just that there have been improvements that can be attributed to the Enlightenment, and he gave empirical data on how that's the case.
Mearsheimer's argument is that "the politics" should define truth just for the sake of good order, and he likes the truth to be as he sees fit. Not a fan
No, the key point of M is that societies are driven by 'tribal thinking' in which the individual in the past (couple of hundred) years has learned to carve out a niche for its individuality, while P argues that all is based on individuals whose aspirations have become global (to do with rationality etc) and become generally accepted rules. It is obvious on the basis of a quick look at history who is more accurate: M. The 'success' of a group of people over others can sometime depend on ideology, more often on technology and capital and movement of capital. Success always has many fathers, failure does not. P ascribes the Enlighenment as one of those 'fathers', M does not. In a nutshell.
Mearsheimer: You compare countries based on Christian values and others and the overwhelming evidence may give you some insight of where you'd rather live.
It's interesting how a professor can be arguing for enlightenment and still seem to have such a limited view.. ;)
Liberalism or enlightenment imo are much more theoretical or even philosophical constructs than he seems to have in mind, with his stats on life expectancy and endorsement % of (I think it was) the millennium goals.
I live in what is considered a very enlightened country, high on all the rankings according to parameters X and Y.
But I have to carry an ID card when I leave the house, can marry another man but not 2 wives, if I were 17 I wouldn't have half the rights that I have now, my freedom of speech doesn't cover denying the Holocaust or stuff that other people might consider a threat, compulsory education for my kids if I had any, etc. Being a product of my social environment, I don't consider most of these rules to be very anti-liberal. Which of course they are.
I'd feel much different if my sense of freedom was to roam the countryside with my herd of unvaccinated goats, my wives in the hut teaching our daughters how to weave while the sons are out collecting firewood. It would be a daily struggle against my nation state, moreover I don't think decades or even a century of more liberal thinking and policies in my country would enable such a lifestyle.
Liberalism / enlightenment as a thought process or philosophy is probably best described as 'free of dogma'.
By linking progress to enlightenment, enlightenment to liberalism, a strong nation state and international institutions in such a linear manner, Pinker seems to create more dogmatic thinking than he breaks free from.
You seem to confuse liberalism / enlightenment with freedom. Freedom is only a part of it.
Your final paragraph was well put.
As with most things it all comes down to who makes the rules. “He who has the gold makes the rules”.
So one could say it’s liberalism as defined by the Imperialists not liberalism in its purest form.
Pinker looking at the guy with the notes "Talk about Marxism-Leninism" 😂😂😂
Great discussion. It helps clarify the different points of view - both of which exist in tension in all societies.
But Pinker has never understood, or perhaps accepted, the anthropological record of human experience. He’s so focused on what he thinks is the superiority of western individualism he seems willing to accept the domination of other cultures and attempted conversion to a western mindset. I think Mearsheimer is much more respectful of the lived experience of different cultures/societies/nations and more “realistic” about how we need to relate to the rest of the world.
0:36 John Mearsheimer says, “Reason can lead individuals to come up with smart views that the world works in one way lead other individuals to come up with smart views that the world works in other ways.”
Steven Pinker keeps running away from the main point: people will always disagree on their vision of "the good life." Pinker also uses the grossest stereotypes about religion to the end of attacking a straw man. Pinker needs to explain how society gets in the way of human thought when human thought is the product of social interaction. Pinker's ideology is that of liberal triumphalism, even though he claims to deny this.
Your assessment is fair but I agree with Pinker's efforts and spirit and think we should strive for his ideals regardless of the fact that his faith in their triumph is misplaced.
I absolutely agree. He puts one straw man after another. Even when I believe that Pinker’s ideals are worth pursuing, I think he relies, for his defense, on a shallow, localistic notion of rationalism, rather than a dialectical one. That means he assumes context-free individual rationality to be a solid point of departure, without realizing that, even when this notion is one of the greatest emancipatory achievements of humanity, an individual’s rationality cannot be understood without historical context, lest it cause irrationality.
In fact, at the end, we realize that his context-free definition is not even actually the case because he, tacitly or not so much, assumes the Western liberal notion as the superior way. This forces John Mearsheimer to remind him that we do not need enlightenment to produce certain universal values, which have been proven to exist even before Western dominance. In the end, his defense is, as you say, the shallow Eurocentric liberal triumphalism that has created a sad counterreaction to the set of great values that Pinker meant to defend. Considering the state of the world today, and particularly the cultural debates taking place within the West, but also beyond, it is hard to escape the conclusion that his point of view has been counterproductive to his own, very commendable, goals.
Pinker admitted there will never be agreement on that but never the less the ideas are getting less divergent. So not sure what is your point
It seems to me Pinker addresses that head-on. If I may paraphrase his ideas, smart educated people 200 years ago disagreed strenuously over the morality of slavery. Now smart people agree it was a great sin and disagree over whether society has done enough to redress the harm of slavery and its residual generational effects, an argument early 19th century scholars probably couldn't even imagine. So, yes people there is still disagreement but it's on an entirely different level. That's moral progress if the term means anything, wouldn't you say?
The question of which is getting in the way of what is the key issue. Society in the way of thought vs. the opposite. It’s not as simple as that and Pinker even admits it, unlike M.
If "liberal democracy" means oligarchical capitalism --
then an "autocracy" might be a government able to put limits on its oligarchs.
The very fact that Marxism-Leninism is Pinker's go-to example is emblematic of the culture he lives in. I consider him highly intelligent and even brilliant in some ways, but breaking free of that world is not something he shows he can do in my opinion. Even his criticisms of modern liberalism are played within the lines of a confined field and many rules, written or unwritten.
Everything you just said, in actuality, applies to yourself and cult you live in.
@@jamesshepherd9390 Sure, James, whatever you say. 🤟 But thanks for calling me brilliant.
@@friendlyfire7861 You can't pretend to dismiss the insult while simultaneously accepting it as a compliment 😂😂 you have to pick one
@@jamesshepherd9390 ?? Of course I can, that's what I did for Mr. Pinker. Not all thinking has to be binary black/white (perhaps being non-binary makes you uncomfortable; it comes from a lack of flexibility). But now that I think again, I'll dismiss the compliment, too, coming from you.
@@friendlyfire7861 Who are you even replying to? Nothing you just said is even connected remotely to anything I said. Are you actually experiencing a psychotic episode? Since you're apparently so desperate to avoid the charge, I'll just repeated it even more plainly: You are the one trapped in an ideological culture which is putting serious limits on your critical thinking skills, not Pinker -- I suppose this level of deliberate obtuseness is to be expected of someone who unironically finds Mearsheimer convincing.
Industrialization has had far greater impact for most humans in few centuries than anything else. Floated all boats even in the natural unequal world, probably main cause that took down European Monarchy, improved life overall.
John was brilliant in that debate, some thoughts made me think hard. To what degree exactly has enligthenment contributed to the progress we've seen since 1680? Thank you for the debate :)
Enlightenment has contributed so much progress we've seen since 1680, but it will not be able to solve the political issues that we are facing now. The wars will go on and even increase in frequency and intensity. John is right on that.
Best disagreement I've seen all year! LOVED IT!
I am with steven here, if its bad that kids are dying or starving, then the question is what to do about it, and it is the how people disagree on and frankly a lot of people just don't seem to care very much, so there is a problem of achieving goals people have in common but also dealing with the political realities brought about by people who just don't care to try very hard.
These are fair points, but who is it that does not care? Do you mean, non liberal societies. That makes no sense.