"A society that separates its scholars from its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." -Thucydides This is some of my favorite kind of content. Keep it coming.
darrenbetts2987 back in the olden days like Sophocles Plato etc, poet didn’t necessarily mean making rhyming songs in weird cadences, a lot of times poet could be associated with philosophy and outward thinking
When I was a missionary in Nebraska one of the questions I would frequently ask was "Is truth still truth if nobody believes it?" If they said no I knew getting through to to them was a long shot.
I'm with you David, there are 1,000 gun channels, and historically warriors weren't just blood thirsty brutes. I'm glad John is working to address the full spectrum of the warrior ethos.
I'm actually just here for the philosophy, too. Also for the history, but defiantly more for the philosophy. And I think that is the only channel of this kind, so please keep making these more philosophical videos.
If you only want to "stick to guns" you're an idiot and therefore incapable of understanding and properly administering justice with said tool. Learn to develop your mind far beyond your physical abilities, for your God-given brain is the real weapon.
It was moving to see someone give their honest account of how they see the world, their place in it and heartening to witness a person try to make the lives of others an easier thing. More than this to do it while taking the risk of having others call you a fool or worse; I admire your courage and motives and I could not do the same I thing thank you. I hope I can suggest that there may be places in the logic presented that could be refined by discussion with the aim of making other's lives easier, the ideas of moral philosophy have helped me greatly (I perform a job which though essential requires at it's core undeniably "difficult" decisions be regularly made, these are ethically and philosophically troubling and of enormous gravity a great deal of the time and these ideas helped me make peace with this). Your central assertion seems to me to be that it is nonsense to say morality is relative and facts are in fact fluid because; for example 2+2=4!!! always! only! how could it not be like that!!! how are people too stupid to see the obvious fact that 2+2=4 and why in god's name would anybody say there are no facts since that is obviously a fact!!!!!(angry face!!!). I want to be clear with this response that I'm not specifically refuting any statement that was made here or trying to belittle anyone, what I am trying to do is say to this idea that Ït's obvious!" that... it... may... not be as straight forward as it seems at first. What I am about to say is going to seem really odd but I have to really re-inforce this is not crazy; while I am likely wrong in the details and there is room for debate here the statement I'm about to make is not so profoundly incorrect as to be stupid or unarguably wrong. 2+2=4 is to mathematicians not a simple fact, it's actually a very difficult statement to prove and smart people have spent their entire lives trying to justify why 2+2 is 4 axiomatically true without presenting some paradox other (it's much harder than it sounds) and believe it or not this is still not completely resolved (if your interested see Russell's paradox, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, and the Godel Incompleteness theorem- but maybe set aside a good length of time because it's fascinating and because mathematicians are really smart and they write things down without really caring if normal people understand what they're saying). Can I repeat that: there is an open argument between actual people who are undeniably better at maths than almost everyone else about whether 2 & 2 make four and if so why. That's weird. I wonder if it's worth reflecting on the possibility that if a statement like "2+2=4" is backed a complicated mess of weird and partially complete justifications then maybe there are other statements that are more complex than they seem at first? Please understand I'm not trying to say there are no facts, that 2+2 is anything other than 4, nor that morality is relative and please... it would be ridiculous to go to your bank and argue that given there is no universally resolvable set theory to justify numerical definitions and operations as they appear to empirically function you shouldn't have to pay your mortgage (unless you hate the bank manager and also hate continuing to own your house). But I am trying to say something more general I think is important; that it's not so simple as saying the other side is flatly wrong and intellectually bankrupt even if what they're saying seems to contradict common sense; there might be more laying under the surface that is difficult to see and the best people to show us what that is are usually the people we disagree with and it's worth pushing past a desire to dismiss them as idiots/ if you're interested in moral philosophy there's actually a lot on you tube about it. PBS studios released a whole course on it ("Crash course philosophy" has a module) and PBS idea channel has a really interesting discussion of postmodernism as a movement that goes through it's basics really well; I can post links if you'd like. I really hope I didn't offend anybody; I know it's hard when someone questions things you hold really dear and I didn't mean to make anyone feel as though they were stupid or wrong or sense like I thought that (I don't, I'm actually really happy I'm not the only one who thinks about this a lot) I just wanted to suggest that this is an area we can all think about and I'd be really interested to hear what you guys think and I'd be happy to expand on stuff it I was unclear or confusing.
I'm reminded of Whoopi Goldberg on national television, going on about how all the cops are gunning down black men, "I feel like it's a thing, so it's a thing."
Pete Sheppard true. Or what do you feel rather than what are the facts. What is real, rather than what you feel. It seems like that very simple idea. Or fact . Just doesn't matter anymore.
The feeling aspect of thought is one of the most tragic consequences on the Post Modern thought. Feelings change with circumstances and leave your thoughts irrelevant in bringing a person to a conclusive answer. The key to finding a solution to every problem, one must think through the issues and failures. This is the lefts anti-Christ key to changing the vernacular so truth is what they say it is, not what GOD says it 'has been'. This was predicted long ago by the phrase, "Once the Mathematicians take over though, logic and reason becomes an archaic form of dogmatic Protagonism. Science therefore, must be conducted by philosophically minded thinkers."
Pete Sheppard - The key is maintaining balance between “thinking” and “feeling”. Feeling is important too because it’s connected to our gut/intuition, which is what God often uses to convict us. Being “in your head” (thinking) too much, can be just as harmful as being overly emotional, (feeling) too much. You can tell by looking at God’s creation... everything he created is balanced... or at least everything was... until man began making wrong choices.
I am not of your generation, much older, so it is so refreshing to hear a well reasoned, well spoken, affirmation of the reality of absolute truth. Your brief history of philosophical beliefs/popular trends was spot on, and your assessment of relative truth, situational ethics (implied) was also spot on. Having taught this myself to college-aged students in the past, I am so pleased to hear you bring this to our current generation. New subscriber and thoroughly enjoying your self-defense videos, now thrilled to discover this side of your material. Cheers!
For someone who says to stick to gun videos and leave out your "rants" are not real fans of the "Warrior Poet Society". Mr. Lovell I believe I love your talks on the fighting mind set more than the actual gun lessons and tips you share. I believe I speak for many of us that follow you, but to actually listen to what you say in your videos like this, as much as we appreciate your gun videos makes us real fans of "Warrior Poet Society". We are lovers, and fighters. We fight for what we love.
Ben Dauphin+ I agree! A man must know why he fights, hence what he's fighting for, or he will not fight with all that is in him and he will die. Philosophy must be decided and filed away in the brain before the fight, so that you don't have to think about it when the fight comes, or while the fight is on. Then you can fight with all that is in you without reserve or remorse. No second thoughts, no hesitations, no wondering am I right? Should I fight? How strongly do I feel about this fight? How far am I willing to go with this fight? Know yourself and your beliefs, file them away in a place where they can be recalled at a moments notice, believe in yourself and your beliefs and what you hold dear. And always stay right with God, keep yourself in line with the Father. Be prepared to die, even when you win.
This is what makes John great. This sets that kind of man apart. I sleep better & walk in the daylight with more peace knowing men like John the Rangers the special force etc exist. But John is top level stuff. I listen to him & hope he DOESNT get weak to apologize out of fear of trolls but he has never let me down.
Bertrand Russell missed some dichotomy in that statement. Who are we to tell others of there certainty or doubt. In my experiences I have found that most people that are certain of behavior are acting on instinctual confusion that leads them to a false certainty and in contrast, most people that seem humble are actually very arrogant and portray themselves as having doubts. It is a supper minority that actually are certain of outcome not cloaked in doubt and visa versa too few who doubt aren't looking for the praise of colleagues. Such is the condition of humanity that we all lock ourselves in a vacuum of like minded fools that stroke our egos. This is each mans quest to be GOD unto himself.
You know I was flicking through my bird watching handbook the other day and I came across an interesting bird. The Loggerhead Shrike. It's described as one of the very few songbirds that Hunt as well as Sing. I instantly thought "Warrior Poet!". There is definitely some iconography and symbolism to exploit here.
Depending on which assumptions you start with (often called first principles), you can logically arrive at any philosophical view you want. ex. assume people can't be trusted with unchallenged authority, that initiating coercion or violence against other people is immoral, that defending against others who initiate coercion or violence is moral, and consistent property rights reduce violent conflict over scarce resources. If you follow the above assumptions to their logical conclusion, you'll arrive at libertarianism or something very similar. But, if you change the assumptions, you can come to communism, totalitarianism, or even such absurdities as a world view that includes pedophilia and murder as moral. Some philosophies are better than others, if you evaluate them through an assumption such as all people deserve a chance to live and persue their own happiness as long as they don't infringe on other's right to do the same. If you toss out that assumption, you can come to a philosophical justification for murder and slavery. The truth is, this is the meta of philosophy. The philosophy of philosophy, if you will. Understanding this is important, because it gives you insight into how people come to the philosophies they have. You can argue with a communist about economics untill you pass out from exhaustion, but you won't change their mind unless you challenge the first priciples that logically lead to communism being desirable in their mind.
Correction: First, 2+2 is 8, then you divide by 2 and then divide again by 1. Moreover, the answer will only be graded as correct if all the above steps are clearly listed. BTW, you are overdue for your daily youtube video...
Yeah. Common Core Math sucks. I understand it (or it's intended point) well, to focus on more application of mathematics. As an engineer, I was trained to solve problems in creative, yet efficient manners. Most of these kids are now being taught that there is one and only one way to work math problems. We are truly NOT producing thinkers, more-so regurgitators. I left corporate to go into teaching 10 years ago. I now refuse to teach within this broken system, but instead run my own Math and Science Tutoring/Test Prep business. I get to fix at least some of this broken mess. I appreciate all of you guys and your videos. Continued success.
Relativism is less arguing that absolute truths don’t exist, but rather that they don’t exist without context. I.e. 2+2=4 is considered a truth, within a mathematical framework. Relativists would likely argue that all solutions cannot be hard defined without first establishing a viewing position. So questions like, ‘what is the meaning of life,’ ‘is the study of philosophy moot,’ or ‘is it turtles all the way down?’, would be unable to be solved without first applying a prerequisite framework. Which is in line with your assertion of philosophy being the initial lens that the rest of your experiences are filtered through. Philosophy and logic are two sides of the same coin. Neither begat the other. I think what most philosophies like relativism, skepticism, existentialism, nihilism, etc and other branches centralized around doubt really look to accomplish, is to highlight that inability to separate ourselves from our own philosophies, that all positions are hard positions, even though feigning neutrality-even in the case of your teacher, you may ask, ‘What experiences has she had that have produced her conclusion-and in being unable to separate the mind from the lens we are limited to a single pool of data, and so cannot come to any conclusion of a higher likelihood than any other. Is the study of philosophy moot?-maybe. Is it turtles all the down?-possibly. I think the rhetoric you’re pushing is less against the philosophical position, and more against the practicality of practicing a doubting position.-something along the lines of, would it be more beneficial for persons and communities to pick a hard stance on common moral/ethical questions, and push forward towards that agreed destination? Which is subtle but crucial distinction.
Relativism is simply a lazy way around taking a stand. If I say everything is relative I don't have to take a stand. It is shameful, and sadly our education system is promoting it. Thank you for sharing, John.
@Colin Cleveland slavery in the bible was indentured servitude. The bible says very clearly that if you kidnap a man and force him to work for you, you should be put to death. That is what the bible says about the kind of slavery you are thinking of.
@bluesbondsman that’s not true read the exodus rules regarding slavery lol I can beat them and it’s ok if they don’t die in two days come on pal .....justifying indentured servitude as well just my god what is wrong with yer brain .....by seeing what you fail against we see what you are actually for and it’s screwed up
My bone of contention with moral reletavism, is how the people who whinge about slavery the most, look at how there's more slavea in the world today than any other day in history, that 200,000 women and children are imported (Like shoes or something) into the US alone, every year... And they can't be bothered to care. That they'll look at all the slaves in the Middle East and say something to the effect of how its their culture and we shouldn't judge. Oh, but trying to punish people slavery from 150 years ago, that they had nothing to do with is totally OK? In that if their nose is so bent out of shape about slavery, how about they shut the fuck up about slavery from 150 years ago that nobody could ever possibly change and start focusing on slavery today that they can actually do something about? The point is, that it's not slavery they're bent out of shape about. It's merely a means to an end to justify hatred of someone else... A specific someone else, as otherwise, they'd hate Russians and North Koreans, Chinese... Saudis. Yet these are never the people who come up when talking about their hatred of slavery. Then they try to cover it all up with "Moral Reletavism."
BigErn_Mccraken he’s talking about the modern application of relativism being subjective morality or postmodernism and that entailing the growth of PC culture, diversity quotas based on group identity, collective guilt, the inability to criticize negative aspect of other culture, and eventually moral corruption.
Whenever I hear John speak about this type of stuff I think he's like a jedi from star wars. He's a kick ass fighter but he also has principles and virtues behind his fights, like he wants to be a defender of his values instead of an attacker of other people. Btw thats a pretty good compliment at least in my view!
John, avid reader and life long scholar. This is your most important content. As a fellow millennial, I think we need far more of this. Not just as a shooter and warrior but just people in general. The west is current plagued by a lack of meaning. Loss of faith and philosophy are the root causes of this.
Unfortunately, everyone pretty much can believe or not believe in something, no matter how "true" it may be. I'm personally skeptical that a loss of faith is the cause, since for me being skeptical is why I'm not christian anymore. For me critical thinking is has replaced the area filled by faith, since I strive to understand all that I believe in.
Loss of philosophy and self reflection for sure. Faith..eh. Maybe it helps some but I've never been a fan of religion as it directly contradicts healthy and intelligent critical thinking and logic.
"If you want peace, prepare for war." First lesson when preparing for war: "This is going to really suck. How do we avoid it?" Answer: Philosophy. Thus every good soldier has an interest in Philosophy.
Our generation may roll its eyes to this type of discussion but it needs people like you who are unafraid to talk about this. Thank you and keep on keeping on!
I come from the generation after yours and its almost as pathetic, I look around and no one my age really belives in anything. They have no moral compass, no guide, no path, and no philosophy and if they do their morality is relative. So sad, so pathetic.
Caramel Johnson to label all gen x parents as shitty parents and Marxist is not a fair analogy,I would like to think that as one of those parents I've done a great job raising my kids and instilling in them the morals and values that are right and true,not all of us are polluted by money and government,I would also add that I'm sure the gen x crowd are what Hillary labeled the deplorables,so we had a big hand in getting someone outside of politics elected to change the downward spiral of our great nation......just my 2 cents God bless
Dark Knight Goes into Hiding What is your opinion, then, of Sharia Law? It is ok to beat or kill your wife if she shames you in some way? or how about female genital mutilation? These are laws built upon the premises you have mentioned. According to your theory there is nothing wrong with them because they are established by government and accepted and practiced by the people. Western culture says they are wrong. Both can't be right.
Dark Knight Goes into Hiding So what do when someone with opposing views tries to militantly impose their views in you? What makes you the authority to state Sharia law is wrong? I am opposed to Sharia law myself. I'm just trying to understand you point of view and where you draw the line.
Mitch Robinson I agree with John's premise that there is objective Truth given to us by God that determines right and wrong. Without such a basis for truth, how do we determine right from wrong? If we say that it is Western culture, I would answer that is because our nation was founded upon and greatly influenced Judeo-Christian values, or biblical truth.
One thing I've found that helps to keep in mind is that "truth" is not always synonymous with "fact". Similar to opinion, truth is about our judgements of our subjective experiences. If two people were to experience the exact same thing and one person says that it was traumatic for them, but the other says that it was no big deal, who is being "truthful"? To say that we can have different truths is not to say that 2+2 no longer has to equal 4.
I’d say our founding is the tying together of enlightenment ideals (reason) and judeo-christian thought (moral absolutes/moral purpose). If you get rid of one or the other, you don’t have the US founding as it is.
Jonathan Adams Respectfully, I think you’re dead wrong. A proper morality can ONLY come from a reasoned approach to reality. I highly recommend you read some Ayn Rand.
John, I took "philosophy 101- introduction to ethics" in college and had much the same experience. We studied concepts like utilitarianism, hedonism, socialism, etc. Then, the professor would shoot these philosophies full of holes. This went on for the entire semester. I was optimistic in the beginning, and hated this class more every day. He told us the last day of class was optional (day after finals). The lecture subject was: "The way I see things, otherwise known as... The Truth". Two students showed up. I was one of these. If you missed the last day, you missed the entire point of the class. Best class I ever took in school. Period.
I see no issue with this. Philosophical thought is intended to be discussed and put to the test. You're saying, you studied concepts, and then the concepts would be criticized. Sounds great. Find a way to defend or argue against. What's the issue? That's like saying "Science can not be contested". Science is intended to be contested.
I enjoy the tactical application videos quite a bit but there is a reason why I subscribed to the warrior poet society, this kind of content is that reason. Thank you for your insight John, as a nation we need this kind of catalyst for thought and discussion now more than ever.
John, I am a fellow sheepdog and your Brother in Christ. I am also a pastor and former seminary prof. The reason that I am commenting is because I wanted to tell you that this was one of the most brilliant explanations of the dangers of relativism that I have come across. I have an incredible amount of respect for your skill, your faith, and your intellect. And I’m proud to call you my brother. Clay A. Kahler, Ph.D.
Hi John, it is incredible that you are touching this point, I am a philosopher and I am about to get my degree, i´m 23 and I just found out about your channel a few days ago and everything I have learned is impressive, I really appreciate it, you are rigth about how worthless is my generation, but for me, being a humanistic poet and thinker, i really think that in the bottom of my heart i´m a warrior, ready to do whatever i need to help and protect me, my loved ones, and my students, that´s part of being a fulfilled person in every aspect in life, be equilibrated between academic stuff and real life, that´s why i train as much as i can and try to learn in every aspect to be ready for the worst as for the best.I truelly admire you, and i hope to be in one of your classes one day, thanks a lot for being part of my proces to become in a better person every day! (i wish you read it) Regards from Bogota Colombia.
Hi sir, I enjoy watching all of your videos, and I'd like to think of myself as one of your student warrior poets, or warrior philosophers, as I try hard every day to live by the creed you kind of set here. Recently, I brought this particular video of yours, to two of my classes, as part of assignment requests from both my Theology instructor as well as my Psychology instructor. My theology instructor asked me, what I personally thought of you, and of your own theories. When I told him that I never had met you in person but did watch nearly all of your videos, especially those which centered around your outlook on the world, philosophies, and your ideals, he quickly began to lecture me on the validity of your knowledge and that I would be a fool to learn anything from anyone based solely on videos. I then accidentally caught him in his own biasness, when I mentioned to him that much of his class is spent watching narratives from videos, or that much of our homework consisted of viewing videos of other people talk about their perspectives, just as you did on here. My Theology instructor then informed us, he was going to change parts of his curriculum. Now as for my Psychology instructor, she just simply challenged you outright, in that, calling oneself, a warrior poet is an oxymoronic term, as according to her, being a warrior and being a poet are completely and diametrically opposed to one another. When I asked why, she told me that it is impossible to be able to think about feelings, or have any type of cerebral clarity, if you're mind is constantly fixated on fighting or warring with others around you. However, I mentioned to her that many warriors were also great poets and philosophers, like Plato, Sun Tzu, Aristotle, Rene Descartes, John McCrae, Mahatma Gandhi, and many others. She then told me that I was trying to grasp at straws with using your ideals and or principles, to bolster my claim. She further stated that just because someone may have some introspective ideas does not mean that they can be on the same playing field with the likes of Ralph Waldo Emerson or Gandhi. That's when I confronted her assumptions, and explained that according to history and philosophy, each of those men including Mr. Lovell, all have one constant in relation to one another that even she could not deny, and that is, their truths is their very own lives, in that they all have formulated concepts of humanity through their very own existences, and that, and that alone, makes them all equal to one another. When class let out for the day, she told me that she was still unimpressed with your ideas or ideals but that she was still going to give me an A on my assignment, if only to get me out of her class, so that she can teach without being questioned. Perhaps you could be standard reading or viewing material some day across the country in all universities, I mean, you never know.
Debra McJunkin Now that took guts to do what you did. I applaud you and your research. Keep up the good work. You know how to not only state your point of view, but to defend it with facts, truth and belief! You are the definition of a “Warrior Poet.” You took these professors to the battlefield, challenged their beliefs and managed to defend your beliefs in a very intellectual and non-accusatory way while additionally remaining calm, cool, confident, and collected. (Warrior) You did this in the best way possible. By being “poetic” in your approach. (Poet) You’ve got an A in my book too! Good job Ma’am! 👍🏼
One upside of philosophy survey courses are they expose a student to different ways of thinking about what is good/true that they can try on for themselves, but I agree with your criticism that it’s easy, without a skilled teacher, to end up regurgitating the ideas of others without attempting to integrate these ideas into your own understanding.
"The final weapon is the brain, all else is supplemental " John Steinbeck from his last and unfinished work, The Acts of King Arthur and his Noble Knights. This is my wife's grandfather and he was a very wise man.
Just found this channel. Very impressed so far. You can tell he knows his stuff because of how comfortable he is showing his real personality. He shares his knowledge without ego and trying to impress you with what a badass he is. It's usually the loudest ones who depend on the tough guy approach to get their points across. He seems to be the epitome of the quiet professional. Those who know, know what that means.
I’m 21 and I feel like I can never talk about things like this with most of my friends I’ve always been a very deep thinker and I feel disconnected from most people my age
Those of your generation were overwhelmingly immersed in leftist lies and propaganda by their so called teachers. It's The fault of previous generations who allowed Moral relativism and Marxism to be spoon fed to kids from K-12 and then have their indoctrination completed in the universities. So when our society falls from within (and it will) it will be up to people like you to lead others out of darkness. I'm sorry that my and other generations failed you by letting these vermin traitors take over the educational systems.
I couldn't agree more. I feel like I can't talk to other people my age because I would like to talk about subjects like this and I've tried many times but they seem to always not listen and start joking around with each other. It sucks
I don't understand how the enlightenment period is considered a failure. That period in our history is what laid the framework for most of our modern systems of government, scientific discovery, economics, and religion. Between John Locke, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Hume, Voltaire, and more, they tested the boundaries and put forth new ideas that changed history. One could argue that the United States is the child of the Enlightenment period.
Great video, found this channel through some of the guest appearances/shooting videios, and they're great. Will definitely be watching a lot more of what you do. One of my favorite lines has always been "everything is relative". Yes, truth is relative to the analytical framework that you're speaking in. To say that to a certain degree truth is absolute, you've essentially assumed or are speaking within an analytical framework. Totally valid, but it's a distinction worth noting. Again, solid content.
Nah that didn't hurt at all Mr. Lovell i quite enjoy your videos . Yes i referred to you as Mr. Lovell its with respect although i am 50 going on 51 i feel that given your military service it is respect where its due Thank you for this enlightening video
"The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it." Bertrand Russell
Awesome 👏. Thank you for explaining to me that I’m not crazy. I’ve tried to talk to millennials about this very subject and they talk to me like I’m crazy or too stupid to understand post- modernism. Or what’s even worse is that they won’t acknowledge that they are post-modernists. They deny absolutely everything and stubbornly argue “my truth”. It’s so exasperating. There is no possible way to argue with someone who will not acknowledge the truth, because truth is relative. Sigh. And then they try to tell me about my white privilege. 🙄 I’m one of the youngest Baby Boomers, so I have a little bit of the post- modern education but mostly I’m solid in my evangelical Christian upbringing from my parents who were of the Greatest Generation. Thank you again. I’m also ex-military and subscribed to your channel for the home defense and gun videos. I benefited from this video as well. Thank you 🙏🏻 Keep up the great work👍
I try to avoid attaching myself to any particular group or brand but this is the type of content that makes me happy to buy your expensive shirts and rep your brand (dare I say our brand). These are the types of conversations our society desperately needs. The schools won't do it so I guess we the people must step up. Thank you for leading the way.
Criticises teaching the history of philosophy - starts talking about the history of philosophy. Criticises relativism - says it's okay to if you don't agree with everything he says.
So after 4 years in the military and 5 years at a Fortune 500 company, I started college last week and in an English class I started reading the textbook...I see exactly what you’re talking about. The damn textbook rejects truth.
@@pkmachinegun honestly... i think you should check out other schools asap, my school has english classes too but we either only write essays (writing classes) or read literature, took a class last semester that only dealt with Shakespearean tragedies lol
Oh man, tell me about it. I went to school back in 2009 and the only place such poison was found, was in a Women's Studies class I attended. Everyone I knew to come out of it was a man hating cultist (Not even joking... Not even a little bit) and I wanted to know why, as I'm not Groucho Marzx, who goes around saying "I don't know what it is, but I'm against it!" Shoot forward to 2017, I was trying to wrap up my degree and pretty much every class was infected with that poison... Like it spidered out and afflicted everything. English, Psychology, Sociology, Behavioral Science, Philosophy, etc etc. They were all Feminist promoting platforms. Leavong me like "Yep, this explains a lot."
He is certainly right that a part of contemporary philosophy is really history of philosophy. It might be worth pointing out that there is also another part of contemporary analytic philosophy that is quiet different. There are subjects, such as philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, ontology, metaphysics and so on, where people engage in highly specific questions, that are discussed in a very clear and unyielding manner. Unfortunately, these questions are set in a rather technical framework, that is very difficult to penetrate if you are not comfortable with math (or more precisely, with philosophical logic). Since he focuses on the notion of truth, let me give you an example. Ever since Alfred Tarski’s ground braking work, most people in the debates dismiss the relativistic nonsense he mentions. The general feeling is basically that the notion of truth must somehow be spelled out along the following line: The sentence “Snow is white.” is true if and only if the fact that snow is whit obtains. Truth depends on the world. It is a property of a sentence or a proposition. Given this, we can apply logic to analyze the logical relations between sentences and to derive conclusions by logical deduction. This part of philosophy is largely unknown to the general public, but I sincerely hope it gets more exposure - suffice it to say, if truth depends on the world, then it does not depend on your feelings.
Hey man, only just come across your channel and I'm liking this video a great deal. As a fellow Millenial - and for the record, I don't know too many in our generation who feel a particular attachment to Postmodernism - I find the whole idea about it to be nothing more than a justification for anti-intellectualism. Weirdly enough, it's mostly been people of an older generation that seem most in tune with it in my experience. I showed my friends evidence of the British Royal Family having the power to dissolve parliament, and they still didn't believe the evidence in writing from UK legislation with the crest of the Crown and the Queen's official stamp on there, yet they still didn't buy it. Postmodernism isn't worth the time of day to me, and any serious academic marking my coursework as a student wouldn't allow me to tell them I deserve a higher mark because the marking criteria is different to me as a justification for not meeting the learning outcomes. That's just a sad display of a fragile ego.
hey john. I was born in 1999 and I can relate to many of the sentiments you voice in this video. it's on us to set a good example for our misguided contemporaries.
One thing that may have caused Millennials to be so dramatically worse than those who preceded them is the fact that they grew up just as human history entered the greatest and most fundamental paradigm shift, the digital omnipresent information age. This I believe has caused a chasmic rift between the Millennials and their parents, and the resulting generation gap from hell all but destroyed their parents ability to relate virtues and life lessons into this fundamentally different reality.
Caleb Brinkley I would disagree. The beginning and ending of generations are kind of arbitray in the grand scheme of things but just cause, I'd argue that a new generation begins when they can start influencing the world around them or the world before them has changed into a new one. Usually a 20 year mark (but there are also generational strapplers who can ID with a prior generation or the one after them depending on what they experienced). So to me, the millennial generation begins1979 and ends 1999. If you were an adolescent or child or infant in the 90s the world you would soon know was becoming a vastly different place than the ones your parents knew, the norms werr shifting, and the people born within these timeframes I feel would relate to that change more easily (we can argue for 1978 or 2000 but anything post 2001 is a stretch and goes into the gen z spectrum IMO).
John, Thank You for this "rant". This is maybe the most sensible thing I've heard in years, at least as it relates to hopefully opening the eyes and minds of a couple of generations of Americans that I feel are on the wrong path. Whether by their own doing or by the combined societal and academia driven brainwashing, they are on a path of destruction. I'm 59 years old so I guess it's fair to note that there is my gererational life experienced relativity forming my opinions, but my agreement with everything you said, especially your message of absolute truth, cannot be written off by the naysayers of today. Those who are always quick to ignore facts, and usually by pointing at the obsolescence of previous generations and consequently writing off the opinions of said generations as antiquated rants. I recently discovered WPS on you tube and have been impressed with your knowledge and straightforward honesty. I have several young people in my life that I am going to share this with in hopes of them not only taking it to heart but in hope that they share the message with their contemporaries. I'm already subscribed and look forward to more content in the future. Thank You for you're service to this great country, and Thank You for your channel.
As a new viewer of your channel, a millennial myself, I think that what you are saying here is greatly important. One of the largest downfalls of our generation is that truth is subjective, that something can be “your truth, but not mine.” Thank you for saying as much! Education these days is teaching what to think instead of how to think.
I've started to notice a lot of highly motivated, educated, successful millennials lately. I think the generation gets a bad rap as a whole. Compared to the baby boomers especially. The baby boomers didn't have student loan debt, they had a booming economy that they destroyed and they are now retiring with pensions, social security and a 401k. It's a way different standard today.
Eh, I'd hardly say the end of that level of prosperity was the fault of the baby boomers. It was coming, America could only hold on to industrial dominance for so long after WWII wiped out our competition. I'd like to see why you say it's their fault, rather than the rest of the world catching up to our industrial capacity
ChaseTheStars because they were the ones in power when millennials were born and you can only do as your parents taught you and let you do. One generation makes the next
There is a rather large gap between millennials and baby boomers called Generation X - the greatest generation that straddled the old and new, and are the creators of the world today - The first gamers, the first users of mobile tech, inventors of the internet, the last generation to have real social skills untainted by teenage years on mobile phones like millennials have been - basically generation X are the pinnacle of humanity, and millennials are the first step down towards the decline
I love philosophy but lots of folks will probably think my philosophical outlooks are a very mixed bag: - I'm all for emphasizing personal responsibility in life choices - I'm all for limited government, BUT I'm also for helping those who need help (within limits) - I don't believe in any deities, but I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea or those who do - I don't believe in the attempt to separate what "reason says" from what "God says" because the latter is always about some human being claiming what Gods says and people having to use reason to believe them - or not. The pretense of a distinction here is just that - a pretense. Reason has to be used no matter what. - There may be absolute truth (however that's defined), but it seems largely irrelevant because we're fallible human beings and the task in front of us is determining what is true and what isn't by the limited and fallible reason and tools we have available to us. - There either is a deity or there isn't, that is true, but it's also true there are either many deities or there isn't. It's valid to say there are Bigfoots or there aren't. These are valid dichomoty's but they don't really say anything either. What's important is what reason is there to believe in a deity or deities (or anything else) and how confident we fallible humans are about that. - I'm for separation of church and state but I also think it's been taken way to far in too in many instances - I believe in free will - but it may be the case that I don't have any choice but believe in it. (haha) - Gun control is usually accomplished best with two hands. :)
Holy cow I want to sit around a camp fire with this guy! I finds myself in a place in my life that I don’t have these conversations anymore. Seems like, when I was in college, I was friends with more people that thought differently from me and we would have these conversations all the time when camping. Now that I am older and associate myself with people that are more like me, these conversations don’t happen that often...I don’t feel challenged maybe?? GREAT subject and again, anytime you are in CO, let me know and let’s get a group of dudes together to fireside chat! Keep up the great content, sir.
Someone: you are technically a millennial Me: crud, don't lump me in with them John: I'm the millennial generation, I'm the oldest of the millennials. John: Well if John is a millennial, that is the kind of millennial I want to be.
John Lovell you owe it to yourself to give it a try. I find it amazing you haven't heard of Dr. Peterson given your argument here. I'd also recommend Jocko Willinck and Stefan Molyneux.
He is a clinical psycologist, he is concerned about the challenges of the mind, not science as a discipline. Obviously he lack in rational thinking, being that he is religulous, but he is very very rarely wrong on any specifics. And yeah, John Lowell, you should absolutely check out Jordan Petersen, I have a feeling it may almost turn into a bromance. Petersen repeatedly obliterates PC libtard sophistry, with such ease that it reminds of your story about the most dangerous man in the room. The closest comparison would be if you know about Ben Shapiro.
The videos on guns and tactics make you a badass but your videos on uncensored philosophy are what makes you an idol for young alpha millennials to look up to amongst the pseudo intellectual garbage thats forced down our throats.
Very well said John. 2+2 absolutely equals 4. There are absolutes whether we like it or not. It is very sad to see, and it's not just the "Millennial" generation, what is happening to this great country and the world. You nailed it be calling it what it is, "Anti-philosophy". Thank you for continuing to post up your insights and experience. Don't know if you'll ever get to read this comment but, I at least wanted to post a response. Thanks again. Keep yourself safe. Randy
Diogenes the Cynic living on his minimalist principles was a homeless man eating trash, with only a wooden bowl as his sole possession. until he saw a boy drinking from the river out of his cupped hands. this enraged Diogenes causing him to smash his bowl to pieces and screaming out how disgusted he was of himself for being extravagant
I'm curious as to how someone like John Lovell reconciles the notion of believing in God. Taking from the argument of absolute truth mentioned. God either is or isn't. If God is, what evidence would be submitted to support such an idea? It's my opinion that faith is something upon which we rely when there is no evidence to support an idea with which we identify emotionally.
+Bellerophon 911 have you checked out my 2 videos entitled God and Gunfighting? I go way into it there. Also, my faith is not an optimistic guessing game, rather it is based on evidence and is reasonable. Let me know what you think of the videos bro
I'm a newly subscribed member to your channel. I've found many of your videos very informative for some of my friends new to the world of concealed carry and training. I'll give the suggested videos you mention some careful thought and respond soon. To be clear, it isn't my intention to be rude. I realize sometimes topics like this can spark heated sentiments. Take care
Eyewitness testimony: While eyewitness testimony still has its place in our legal system, it is fraught with error. More and more we are seeing just how problematic eyewitness testimony can be using a simple game of telephone or giving details of a description of an event or the simple act of remembering details about a suspect’s height build or even color of clothing. Now combine these issues with the ignorance of the day, the religious zeal that is common in the middle eastern culture along with a strong desire to believe in something that gives a sense of certainty of everlasting life and you have a recipe for any number of fantastic claims to come out of people’s mouths. Islam, another of the Abrahamic faiths produces all sort of religious extremists believing that if they die in a holy war that they will be rewarded with virgins in paradise.
Intelligent design The primary “evidence” you’ve presented points to the notion of intelligent design in an effort to show proof of the existence of god. Example: “planets, stars and moon.” This of course is an opinion I don’t share largely due to it being fraught with flaws. While it is arguable that many great minds though history once they’ve reach the limits of their understanding of a given subject point to intelligent design as an answer, it only shows that they lack knowledge to work out the answers as well as being a bit awestruck and arguably influenced by religious symbolism prevalent in culture. Coincidentally when this happens, they also stop contributing to scientific discovery as well. Sir Isaac Newton is arguably one of the greatest scientific minds of his day. In none of Newton’s writing does he make a reference to god until he tried to account for the movement of the planets in our solar system using a two bodied problem. In the late 1600’s Newton said : “The six primary planets are revolved throughout in circles concentric with the sun and with motions directed toward the same parts and almost in the same plane. But is it not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions? This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” It wasn’t until P.S. Laplace came along in the late 1700’s using more advanced calculus equations that Laplace was able to work out how the planets traveled in their respective orbits. When Emporer, Napoleon asked Laplace what role god played in the movement of the planets, Laplace replied, “sir I had no need of that hypothesis.”
Hey John, as a person from a background in traditional martial arts, I completely agree that these type of videos are in a sense "more important" than the technical videos you make, although they are both interesting and purposeful. However, I disagree with some ideas you have. Firstly, regarding your philosophy professor: I think that a philosophy academic who has strong personal beliefs would likely not be a great philosophy academic as academia necessitates an open mind and critical thinking to be able to best analyze and research. If I had a strong idea of what truth was, I would not be motivated to study philosophy and any work I do in the field would probably be biased by my beliefs. There are exceptions to my idea that people with specific beliefs would make bad philosophy academics, but I think it's a valid line of thought and that your professor shouldn't automatically be dismissed for not shooting straight with you in this regard. Mainly, I can't buy your idea that there is only absolute truth. 2+2=4 only because we humans have elected to use one number set that we all agree on, and because we define addition on that set. In other words, we (all people) defined it to be true so to say anything else will be a contradiction. There is only a single count of hairs on ones head because the count of hairs is a physical property that can be measured exactly. God either exists or does not exist, because the question of existence is binary in nature. Relative truth certainly exists for certain ideas that are not defined to be true, quantifiable or measurable, or binary, such as the judgement of how good a song is. You may not think a song is good at all, but I may think the melody is good and the vocals are bad, and someone else may thing the song is the best song ever, and these can all coexist and be perfectly true because we all have unquantifiable and nonbinary preferences that we may not even be consciously aware of. Are you suggesting that only one of these viewpoints is true? Lastly, let's assume that everything you said is true and that moral relativity and relative truth are not good ways of thinking. Why are they a problem? I'm okay knowing that in a hypothetical war, if I were a soldier, I'd have to kill the enemy while they think I'm the enemy. I don't need to believe that I am good and they are bad and everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong and in fact I think doing so could be problematic, if my worldview was heavily distorted by mental illness or drugs, for example. Furthermore, I'm happy to go about my day and I'm motivated to better my life, while knowing that people may not agree with my worldview and vice versa because what I believe motivates me whether someone thinks it's true or not and in that sense, I don't really care how "true" outside bodies evaluate it to be. Perhaps this isn't what you mean when you talk about "relative truth" and I am misunderstanding in which case, if you could clarify I would greatly appreciate it. However, if this is what you were talking about, I'd like clarification on why this paradigm is a problem, in your opinion, because I live my life that way and I think it's going pretty well so if there are any issues with it, I'd like to know :P All in all, I'm very glad you made this video because it gives people something to think about and I'm glad there's at least one person talking about guns and tactics on this site who has conviction and doesn't put fighting over everything else. Please don't interpret this comment as an expression of dislike for you; it is quite the opposite. If you have time to respond, again, that would be appreciated because this topic can be complex and I want to ensure I understand your train of thought, for my own body of knowledge.
+Ryan Samlalsingh open-mindedness is more of a spirit we should cultivate, but as we learn and grow in knowledge, we should become necessarily closed to many ideas. I am no longer open to the idea that the world is flat. I am not open to the idea of child sacrifice to appease the Son God. "The point of an open mind is like that of an open mouth. It is meant to close on something solid." -GK Chesterton
Yes, mathematics is, in a sense, a social construct, but over time, it has become accepted as truth, because, well, it works with an extremely high level of reliability. So, I guess it's the truth, because it works? Works for me!
You are spot on! I'm an American that studied Philosophy at a UK university. I found that when I would go home for the break and talk to my friends that had taken philo courses at their american unis, they seemed to know much more than me in terms of history of philosophy and particular philosopher's stances on issues but they had very little experience in conducting their own philosophical research. I find that people discredit philosophy as a topic of study because most people find the specific theories or analyses to be too abstract or they simply disagree with them on fundamental levels. But they miss the point, that philosophy is not ACTUALLY the study of time, truth, political theory, math, etc. Philosophy is the study of reasoning and argumentation. Being good at philosophy means identifying how an argument or institution (based on certain assumptions) actually leads to its own contradiction or ought to be more justified than some other argument. The actual method of philosophy is being lost on American Unis. I was happy to hear that you shared my same sentiment.
9:14 Um, morality is subjective. We can see things one way while others see it another. It's the society within which those views are held that decides what they believe and how they act accordingly. You seem to be speaking of morality as a universal application rather than a personal one. The truth is that it can be discussed as either and entirely separately. Without a concrete and indisputable foundation to work from, Allah/Christ/Other religious base if any actually are such a thing, there is absolutely no way for people to agree on what is or isn't moral...at least with any consistency. No matter what framework you use to come to an ethical conclusion, some or your own personal value system will influence your evaluation of the subject at hand. Truth isn't subjective though. Mathematics isn't a philosophical question. They're questions of arithmetic. Morality and truth like to play hide and seek, sometimes in unison and sometimes not. That said, arithmetics will never be philosophy. Truth itself is absolute. The perception is subjective. Humans cannot separate themselves from perception. If you claim that you can see the absolute you are saying that you are beyond perception. Sorry, but only God and maybe the dead can claim that. Maybe you should stick to guns.
Morality most certainly is subjective for those who do not believe that they will someday be required to give account to their maker. Life is short. You only have one chance to get it right.
@@beavisroadhog9629 You can't even pinpoint what morality God believes into, without idiotically assuming that an invisible, unknowable God is somehow knowable by you, without taking into account that there are more than one versions of, even the Christian, "God". In fact, objective morality would demand to reject God, since his idea of morality is "everything I say is objectively moral, even if it contradicts something I said previously". Pfft. PS: Also, why Life should be short? Why only one chance to get it right, and why infinite punishment for finite errors, by a god that purposefully makes it ambiguous what good vs. evil is, it's not like he visits every day to advise his flock or something.🤣 🤣
Justin Powell I would likely have enjoyed the tours and such. Though my staff sargent was great once you got her trust earned. Then it was mostly a good time.
"A society that separates its scholars from its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." -Thucydides
This is some of my favorite kind of content. Keep it coming.
NICE QUOTE!!! I love this place.... what are ya'll called? The Warrior Poet Society? Sweeeeeeeet!
Yes and welcome to it 👊
@@GeographyCzar I thought I was being slick, but apparently John opens up another video with this quote :p
@@michaelfranciotti3900 -oof! lol, I've done similar. Good self-catch!
Great quote that more people should take to hard. Balance in all things. However, Thucydides didn't say that, Sir William Butler did. Cheers!
"how many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." -Abraham Lincoln (allegedly)
This is good
So your channel is called warrior poet society and people find it suprising that you talk about philosophy. I mean its in your name.
Shawn Willis lol right on
Actually this channel is quite refreshing. Typically Tacticools are way to tough to talk about this
I'm not sure Philosophy is in the name Warrior Poets Society....
darrenbetts2987 back in the olden days like Sophocles Plato etc, poet didn’t necessarily mean making rhyming songs in weird cadences, a lot of times poet could be associated with philosophy and outward thinking
Brandon Choyce I think you mean to weak.
"Killing without thinking - You may hit your target but you will surely miss the point"
When I was a missionary in Nebraska one of the questions I would frequently ask was "Is truth still truth if nobody believes it?" If they said no I knew getting through to to them was a long shot.
NO, not just gun stuff. I love the intellectual videos. Continue to raise our cultural exposure.
I'm with you David, there are 1,000 gun channels, and historically warriors weren't just blood thirsty brutes. I'm glad John is working to address the full spectrum of the warrior ethos.
I'm actually just here for the philosophy, too. Also for the history, but defiantly more for the philosophy. And I think that is the only channel of this kind, so please keep making these more philosophical videos.
If you only want to "stick to guns" you're an idiot and therefore incapable of understanding and properly administering justice with said tool. Learn to develop your mind far beyond your physical abilities, for your God-given brain is the real weapon.
David Born
I love the intellectual stuff too!
It was moving to see someone give their honest account of how they see the world, their place in it and heartening to witness a person try to make the lives of others an easier thing. More than this to do it while taking the risk of having others call you a fool or worse; I admire your courage and motives and I could not do the same I thing thank you.
I hope I can suggest that there may be places in the logic presented that could be refined by discussion with the aim of making other's lives easier, the ideas of moral philosophy have helped me greatly (I perform a job which though essential requires at it's core undeniably "difficult" decisions be regularly made, these are ethically and philosophically troubling and of enormous gravity a great deal of the time and these ideas helped me make peace with this).
Your central assertion seems to me to be that it is nonsense to say morality is relative and facts are in fact fluid because; for example 2+2=4!!! always! only! how could it not be like that!!! how are people too stupid to see the obvious fact that 2+2=4 and why in god's name would anybody say there are no facts since that is obviously a fact!!!!!(angry face!!!).
I want to be clear with this response that I'm not specifically refuting any statement that was made here or trying to belittle anyone, what I am trying to do is say to this idea that Ït's obvious!" that... it... may... not be as straight forward as it seems at first.
What I am about to say is going to seem really odd but I have to really re-inforce this is not crazy; while I am likely wrong in the details and there is room for debate here the statement I'm about to make is not so profoundly incorrect as to be stupid or unarguably wrong.
2+2=4 is to mathematicians not a simple fact, it's actually a very difficult statement to prove and smart people have spent their entire lives trying to justify why 2+2 is 4 axiomatically true without presenting some paradox other (it's much harder than it sounds) and believe it or not this is still not completely resolved (if your interested see Russell's paradox, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, and the Godel Incompleteness theorem- but maybe set aside a good length of time because it's fascinating and because mathematicians are really smart and they write things down without really caring if normal people understand what they're saying).
Can I repeat that: there is an open argument between actual people who are undeniably better at maths than almost everyone else about whether 2 & 2 make four and if so why.
That's weird.
I wonder if it's worth reflecting on the possibility that if a statement like "2+2=4" is backed a complicated mess of weird and partially complete justifications then maybe there are other statements that are more complex than they seem at first?
Please understand I'm not trying to say there are no facts, that 2+2 is anything other than 4, nor that morality is relative and please... it would be ridiculous to go to your bank and argue that given there is no universally resolvable set theory to justify numerical definitions and operations as they appear to empirically function you shouldn't have to pay your mortgage (unless you hate the bank manager and also hate continuing to own your house).
But I am trying to say something more general I think is important; that it's not so simple as saying the other side is flatly wrong and intellectually bankrupt even if what they're saying seems to contradict common sense; there might be more laying under the surface that is difficult to see and the best people to show us what that is are usually the people we disagree with and it's worth pushing past a desire to dismiss them as idiots/
if you're interested in moral philosophy there's actually a lot on you tube about it. PBS studios released a whole course on it ("Crash course philosophy" has a module) and PBS idea channel has a really interesting discussion of postmodernism as a movement that goes through it's basics really well; I can post links if you'd like.
I really hope I didn't offend anybody; I know it's hard when someone questions things you hold really dear and I didn't mean to make anyone feel as though they were stupid or wrong or sense like I thought that (I don't, I'm actually really happy I'm not the only one who thinks about this a lot) I just wanted to suggest that this is an area we can all think about and I'd be really interested to hear what you guys think and I'd be happy to expand on stuff it I was unclear or confusing.
I always cringe when I hear someone say "I am speaking MY truth"
Just remind them (gently?) that FACTS don't care about "their truth" and they are still wrong.
@@swaghauler8334 fuck "gentle" they need to be slapped back to REALITY
I'm reminded of Whoopi Goldberg on national television, going on about how all the cops are gunning down black men, "I feel like it's a thing, so it's a thing."
We used to call that anecdotal evidence and discount it.
@@HobbitHomes263 oh there goes gravity?
Notice how 'feeling' has been so emphasized over thinking... "What do you feel?" rather than, "What do you think?"
Pete Sheppard true. Or what do you feel rather than what are the facts. What is real, rather than what you feel. It seems like that very simple idea. Or fact . Just doesn't matter anymore.
The feeling aspect of thought is one of the most tragic consequences on the Post Modern thought. Feelings change with circumstances and leave your thoughts irrelevant in bringing a person to a conclusive answer. The key to finding a solution to every problem, one must think through the issues and failures. This is the lefts anti-Christ key to changing the vernacular so truth is what they say it is, not what GOD says it 'has been'. This was predicted long ago by the phrase, "Once the Mathematicians take over though, logic and reason becomes an archaic form of dogmatic Protagonism. Science therefore, must be conducted by philosophically minded thinkers."
Yup.... Protestantism!
So "how does that make you feel really mean "how does that make you think"? Interesting.
Pete Sheppard - The key is maintaining balance between “thinking” and “feeling”. Feeling is important too because it’s connected to our gut/intuition, which is what God often uses to convict us.
Being “in your head” (thinking) too much, can be just as harmful as being overly emotional, (feeling) too much. You can tell by looking at God’s creation... everything he created is balanced... or at least everything was... until man began making wrong choices.
I am not of your generation, much older, so it is so refreshing to hear a well reasoned, well spoken, affirmation of the reality of absolute truth. Your brief history of philosophical beliefs/popular trends was spot on, and your assessment of relative truth, situational ethics (implied) was also spot on. Having taught this myself to college-aged students in the past, I am so pleased to hear you bring this to our current generation. New subscriber and thoroughly enjoying your self-defense videos, now thrilled to discover this side of your material. Cheers!
John, brother, stop apologizing. Be you, we are here for reasons beyond “shooting fast and accurate”. Party on, Poets!
For someone who says to stick to gun videos and leave out your "rants" are not real fans of the "Warrior Poet Society". Mr. Lovell I believe I love your talks on the fighting mind set more than the actual gun lessons and tips you share. I believe I speak for many of us that follow you, but to actually listen to what you say in your videos like this, as much as we appreciate your gun videos makes us real fans of "Warrior Poet Society". We are lovers, and fighters. We fight for what we love.
+Ben Dauphin you STUD. Awesome feedback
Hold on let me catch my breath! Thank so much, and thank you for the videos. Means a lot to me
Ben Dauphin+ I agree! A man must know why he fights, hence what he's fighting for, or he will not fight with all that is in him and he will die. Philosophy must be decided and filed away in the brain before the fight, so that you don't have to think about it when the fight comes, or while the fight is on. Then you can fight with all that is in you without reserve or remorse. No second thoughts, no hesitations, no wondering am I right? Should I fight? How strongly do I feel about this fight? How far am I willing to go with this fight? Know yourself and your beliefs, file them away in a place where they can be recalled at a moments notice, believe in yourself and your beliefs and what you hold dear. And always stay right with God, keep yourself in line with the Father. Be prepared to die, even when you win.
This is what makes John great. This sets that kind of man apart. I sleep better & walk in the daylight with more peace knowing men like John the Rangers the special force etc exist. But John is top level stuff. I listen to him & hope he DOESNT get weak to apologize out of fear of trolls but he has never let me down.
I truly appreciate this, John. As a millennial vet who feels a huge disconnect with others my age. Thanks!
XC 1525 hay man, you're not alone
XC 1525 Same
Thank you for your service to our great country! God Bless you and all Vets!
Outstanding, need more videos like this
XC 1525 I feel the exact same way
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so
full of doubts.” Bertrand Russell
phillygoat hello
phillygoat Nothing wrong with being a fanatic of absolute Truths. If that makes me a fool then I am a fool for absolute Truths.
Question everything.
We are restricted to our perspective as humans.
Everything is subjective, even truth.
Soooo... was Bertrand Russel “certain” or “doubtful” of that statement?
Bertrand Russell missed some dichotomy in that statement. Who are we to tell others of there certainty or doubt. In my experiences I have found that most people that are certain of behavior are acting on instinctual confusion that leads them to a false certainty and in contrast, most people that seem humble are actually very arrogant and portray themselves as having doubts. It is a supper minority that actually are certain of outcome not cloaked in doubt and visa versa too few who doubt aren't looking for the praise of colleagues. Such is the condition of humanity that we all lock ourselves in a vacuum of like minded fools that stroke our egos. This is each mans quest to be GOD unto himself.
More content like this is needed. Exercising your mind is just as important as anything else. Great work John!
More people need to find your channel man! I have been on a three day Warrior Poet Binge and I'm better for it
You know I was flicking through my bird watching handbook the other day and I came across an interesting bird. The Loggerhead Shrike. It's described as one of the very few songbirds that Hunt as well as Sing. I instantly thought "Warrior Poet!". There is definitely some iconography and symbolism to exploit here.
+CircaSriYak not bad!
There's a morale patch somewhere in here...
It also impales its prey on large thorns, barbwire etc. and waits for it to die and then comes back to consume it. Very interesting bird.
Allegories to Guerilla Warfare there
Depending on which assumptions you start with (often called first principles), you can logically arrive at any philosophical view you want.
ex. assume people can't be trusted with unchallenged authority, that initiating coercion or violence against other people is immoral, that defending against others who initiate coercion or violence is moral, and consistent property rights reduce violent conflict over scarce resources. If you follow the above assumptions to their logical conclusion, you'll arrive at libertarianism or something very similar.
But, if you change the assumptions, you can come to communism, totalitarianism, or even such absurdities as a world view that includes pedophilia and murder as moral.
Some philosophies are better than others, if you evaluate them through an assumption such as all people deserve a chance to live and persue their own happiness as long as they don't infringe on other's right to do the same. If you toss out that assumption, you can come to a philosophical justification for murder and slavery.
The truth is, this is the meta of philosophy. The philosophy of philosophy, if you will. Understanding this is important, because it gives you insight into how people come to the philosophies they have. You can argue with a communist about economics untill you pass out from exhaustion, but you won't change their mind unless you challenge the first priciples that logically lead to communism being desirable in their mind.
common core math says 2+2 is whatever makes you feel good
Correction: First, 2+2 is 8, then you divide by 2 and then divide again by 1. Moreover, the answer will only be graded as correct if all the above steps are clearly listed. BTW, you are overdue for your daily youtube video...
Yeah. Common Core Math sucks. I understand it (or it's intended point) well, to focus on more application of mathematics. As an engineer, I was trained to solve problems in creative, yet efficient manners. Most of these kids are now being taught that there is one and only one way to work math problems. We are truly NOT producing thinkers, more-so regurgitators. I left corporate to go into teaching 10 years ago. I now refuse to teach within this broken system, but instead run my own Math and Science Tutoring/Test Prep business. I get to fix at least some of this broken mess.
I appreciate all of you guys and your videos. Continued success.
Well this is where where you balance morality and reason philosophy questions go for things like why are we here not what’s 2+2
+Mrgunsngear Channel Feel good? The only thing about Common Core that would make me feel good is its destruction.
Mrgunsngear Channel
No, it’s still 4. Teachers don’t know how to grade it.
Relativism is less arguing that absolute truths don’t exist, but rather that they don’t exist without context. I.e. 2+2=4 is considered a truth, within a mathematical framework. Relativists would likely argue that all solutions cannot be hard defined without first establishing a viewing position. So questions like, ‘what is the meaning of life,’ ‘is the study of philosophy moot,’ or ‘is it turtles all the way down?’, would be unable to be solved without first applying a prerequisite framework.
Which is in line with your assertion of philosophy being the initial lens that the rest of your experiences are filtered through.
Philosophy and logic are two sides of the same coin. Neither begat the other.
I think what most philosophies like relativism, skepticism, existentialism, nihilism, etc and other branches centralized around doubt really look to accomplish, is to highlight that inability to separate ourselves from our own philosophies, that all positions are hard positions, even though feigning neutrality-even in the case of your teacher, you may ask, ‘What experiences has she had that have produced her conclusion-and in being unable to separate the mind from the lens we are limited to a single pool of data, and so cannot come to any conclusion of a higher likelihood than any other. Is the study of philosophy moot?-maybe. Is it turtles all the down?-possibly.
I think the rhetoric you’re pushing is less against the philosophical position, and more against the practicality of practicing a doubting position.-something along the lines of, would it be more beneficial for persons and communities to pick a hard stance on common moral/ethical questions, and push forward towards that agreed destination? Which is subtle but crucial distinction.
Perhaps he's confusing certainty with truth.
Bravo to this comment
I’m too stupid to understand your comment. But good job. It sounds lovely.
Finally I find someone who I think has a brain
Relativism is simply a lazy way around taking a stand. If I say everything is relative I don't have to take a stand. It is shameful, and sadly our education system is promoting it. Thank you for sharing, John.
BigErn_Mccraken .....but remember, Einstein was a sexual deviant who married his cousin. That’s relative.
@Colin Cleveland slavery in the bible was indentured servitude.
The bible says very clearly that if you kidnap a man and force him to work for you, you should be put to death.
That is what the bible says about the kind of slavery you are thinking of.
@bluesbondsman that’s not true read the exodus rules regarding slavery lol I can beat them and it’s ok if they don’t die in two days come on pal .....justifying indentured servitude as well just my god what is wrong with yer brain .....by seeing what you fail against we see what you are actually for and it’s screwed up
My bone of contention with moral reletavism, is how the people who whinge about slavery the most, look at how there's more slavea in the world today than any other day in history, that 200,000 women and children are imported (Like shoes or something) into the US alone, every year... And they can't be bothered to care.
That they'll look at all the slaves in the Middle East and say something to the effect of how its their culture and we shouldn't judge. Oh, but trying to punish people slavery from 150 years ago, that they had nothing to do with is totally OK?
In that if their nose is so bent out of shape about slavery, how about they shut the fuck up about slavery from 150 years ago that nobody could ever possibly change and start focusing on slavery today that they can actually do something about?
The point is, that it's not slavery they're bent out of shape about. It's merely a means to an end to justify hatred of someone else... A specific someone else, as otherwise, they'd hate Russians and North Koreans, Chinese... Saudis. Yet these are never the people who come up when talking about their hatred of slavery. Then they try to cover it all up with "Moral Reletavism."
BigErn_Mccraken he’s talking about the modern application of relativism being subjective morality or postmodernism and that entailing the growth of PC culture, diversity quotas based on group identity, collective guilt, the inability to criticize negative aspect of other culture, and eventually moral corruption.
This is one of my favorite videos of yours John. I guess it's time to expand my library.
Whenever I hear John speak about this type of stuff I think he's like a jedi from star wars. He's a kick ass fighter but he also has principles and virtues behind his fights, like he wants to be a defender of his values instead of an attacker of other people. Btw thats a pretty good compliment at least in my view!
I actually subscribed for this kind of videos
Hello from Scotland. The land of warrior poets. I really appreciate you speaking about what makes a warrior as opposed to a person of violence.
John, avid reader and life long scholar. This is your most important content. As a fellow millennial, I think we need far more of this. Not just as a shooter and warrior but just people in general. The west is current plagued by a lack of meaning. Loss of faith and philosophy are the root causes of this.
Unfortunately, everyone pretty much can believe or not believe in something, no matter how "true" it may be. I'm personally skeptical that a loss of faith is the cause, since for me being skeptical is why I'm not christian anymore. For me critical thinking is has replaced the area filled by faith, since I strive to understand all that I believe in.
Loss of philosophy and self reflection for sure. Faith..eh. Maybe it helps some but I've never been a fan of religion as it directly contradicts healthy and intelligent critical thinking and logic.
"If you want peace, prepare for war."
First lesson when preparing for war: "This is going to really suck. How do we avoid it?"
Answer: Philosophy.
Thus every good soldier has an interest in Philosophy.
Si vis pacem para bellum!
I love philosphy, theology, and the likes and I totally want to a "soldier"
When i learned this my martial arts training made sense.
As a millennial these videos are truly appreciated ❤️
another great vid, and nailed it again!! need more channels talking about this kinda stuff!!!
Who you learn from is just as important as what you learn from them.
This IS one of your finest publications to date. Thank you.
Our generation may roll its eyes to this type of discussion but it needs people like you who are unafraid to talk about this. Thank you and keep on keeping on!
“If you dont stand for anything, you’ll fall for everything.”- Unk
I come from the generation after yours and its almost as pathetic, I look around and no one my age really belives in anything. They have no moral compass, no guide, no path, and no philosophy and if they do their morality is relative. So sad, so pathetic.
Dark Knight Goes into Hiding if truth is relative, who gets to determine what is right and what is wrong? Moral relativism is the denial of truth.
Caramel Johnson to label all gen x parents as shitty parents and Marxist is not a fair analogy,I would like to think that as one of those parents I've done a great job raising my kids and instilling in them the morals and values that are right and true,not all of us are polluted by money and government,I would also add that I'm sure the gen x crowd are what Hillary labeled the deplorables,so we had a big hand in getting someone outside of politics elected to change the downward spiral of our great nation......just my 2 cents God bless
Dark Knight Goes into Hiding What is your opinion, then, of Sharia Law? It is ok to beat or kill your wife if she shames you in some way? or how about female genital mutilation? These are laws built upon the premises you have mentioned. According to your theory there is nothing wrong with them because they are established by government and accepted and practiced by the people. Western culture says they are wrong. Both can't be right.
Dark Knight Goes into Hiding So what do when someone with opposing views tries to militantly impose their views in you? What makes you the authority to state Sharia law is wrong? I am opposed to Sharia law myself. I'm just trying to understand you point of view and where you draw the line.
Mitch Robinson I agree with John's premise that there is objective Truth given to us by God that determines right and wrong. Without such a basis for truth, how do we determine right from wrong? If we say that it is Western culture, I would answer that is because our nation was founded upon and greatly influenced Judeo-Christian values, or biblical truth.
One thing I've found that helps to keep in mind is that "truth" is not always synonymous with "fact". Similar to opinion, truth is about our judgements of our subjective experiences. If two people were to experience the exact same thing and one person says that it was traumatic for them, but the other says that it was no big deal, who is being "truthful"? To say that we can have different truths is not to say that 2+2 no longer has to equal 4.
Hard to tell it better. God bless you!
Ive seen a few of your gun related videos but this video is what made me a subscriber, also this is what makes your channel different and special.
I think the enlightenment did produce some awesome philosophies. The philosophies that led to our constitution were enlightenment ideas.
Drew1231 yeah that’s my train of thought. I like the vid but disagree with that opinion.
I’d say our founding is the tying together of enlightenment ideals (reason) and judeo-christian thought (moral absolutes/moral purpose). If you get rid of one or the other, you don’t have the US founding as it is.
Jonathan Adams Respectfully, I think you’re dead wrong. A proper morality can ONLY come from a reasoned approach to reality. I highly recommend you read some Ayn Rand.
Gross read Marcuse not ayn ...
Joshua Perry You mean Herbert Marcuse? You have to be kidding.
John, I took "philosophy 101- introduction to ethics" in college and had much the same experience. We studied concepts like utilitarianism, hedonism, socialism, etc. Then, the professor would shoot these philosophies full of holes. This went on for the entire semester. I was optimistic in the beginning, and hated this class more every day. He told us the last day of class was optional (day after finals). The lecture subject was: "The way I see things, otherwise known as... The Truth". Two students showed up. I was one of these. If you missed the last day, you missed the entire point of the class. Best class I ever took in school. Period.
I see no issue with this. Philosophical thought is intended to be discussed and put to the test. You're saying, you studied concepts, and then the concepts would be criticized. Sounds great. Find a way to defend or argue against. What's the issue? That's like saying "Science can not be contested". Science is intended to be contested.
Deep stuff. Couldn't agree more. Being a warrior needs a very good reason behind it. Righteousness and natural law sure seem like a good start.
I enjoy the tactical application videos quite a bit but there is a reason why I subscribed to the warrior poet society, this kind of content is that reason. Thank you for your insight John, as a nation we need this kind of catalyst for thought and discussion now more than ever.
John, I am a fellow sheepdog and your Brother in Christ. I am also a pastor and former seminary prof. The reason that I am commenting is because I wanted to tell you that this was one of the most brilliant explanations of the dangers of relativism that I have come across. I have an incredible amount of respect for your skill, your faith, and your intellect. And I’m proud to call you my brother.
Clay A. Kahler, Ph.D.
2+2+3 = 5.56 ...........in NATO of course
Thomas mangiaracina OMG😂
a TRUTHFUL comment
@@mosescelica17 Lay off the propaganda/ *"everybody* knows that!!!" gun forum ignorance
Lmfao
I'm A Boy if 5.45 is real warrior stuff then 7.62x39mm is the god killers.
I'm a new sub, and I've only washed about 2 dozen videos. but this is probably one of your best! keep up the good work brother.
* watched, stupid talk to text
You better wash all them videos Gun Slinger!
you're spot on brother! Hold the line of Truth, and then Advance & Conquer the Apathy!
I have relatives, but everything is NOT inately relative:)
Hi John, it is incredible that you are touching this point, I am a philosopher and I am about to get my degree, i´m 23 and I just found out about your channel a few days ago and everything I have learned is impressive, I really appreciate it, you are rigth about how worthless is my generation, but for me, being a humanistic poet and thinker, i really think that in the bottom of my heart i´m a warrior, ready to do whatever i need to help and protect me, my loved ones, and my students, that´s part of being a fulfilled person in every aspect in life, be equilibrated between academic stuff and real life, that´s why i train as much as i can and try to learn in every aspect to be ready for the worst as for the best.I truelly admire you, and i hope to be in one of your classes one day, thanks a lot for being part of my proces to become in a better person every day!
(i wish you read it) Regards from Bogota Colombia.
Much love if you see this John. Great work. Needs to be said more often
Hi sir,
I enjoy watching all of your videos, and I'd like to think of myself as one of your student warrior poets, or warrior philosophers, as I try hard every day to live by the creed you kind of set here. Recently, I brought this particular video of yours, to two of my classes, as part of assignment requests from both my Theology instructor as well as my Psychology instructor.
My theology instructor asked me, what I personally thought of you, and of your own theories. When I told him that I never had met you in person but did watch nearly all of your videos, especially those which centered around your outlook on the world, philosophies, and your ideals, he quickly began to lecture me on the validity of your knowledge and that I would be a fool to learn anything from anyone based solely on videos. I then accidentally caught him in his own biasness, when I mentioned to him that much of his class is spent watching narratives from videos, or that much of our homework consisted of viewing videos of other people talk about their perspectives, just as you did on here. My Theology instructor then informed us, he was going to change parts of his curriculum.
Now as for my Psychology instructor, she just simply challenged you outright, in that, calling oneself, a warrior poet is an oxymoronic term, as according to her, being a warrior and being a poet are completely and diametrically opposed to one another. When I asked why, she told me that it is impossible to be able to think about feelings, or have any type of cerebral clarity, if you're mind is constantly fixated on fighting or warring with others around you. However, I mentioned to her that many warriors were also great poets and philosophers, like Plato, Sun Tzu, Aristotle, Rene Descartes, John McCrae, Mahatma Gandhi, and many others. She then told me that I was trying to grasp at straws with using your ideals and or principles, to bolster my claim. She further stated that just because someone may have some introspective ideas does not mean that they can be on the same playing field with the likes of Ralph Waldo Emerson or Gandhi. That's when I confronted her assumptions, and explained that according to history and philosophy, each of those men including Mr. Lovell, all have one constant in relation to one another that even she could not deny, and that is, their truths is their very own lives, in that they all have formulated concepts of humanity through their very own existences, and that, and that alone, makes them all equal to one another. When class let out for the day, she told me that she was still unimpressed with your ideas or ideals but that she was still going to give me an A on my assignment, if only to get me out of her class, so that she can teach without being questioned.
Perhaps you could be standard reading or viewing material some day across the country in all universities, I mean, you never know.
Debra McJunkin Now that took guts to do what you did. I applaud you and your research. Keep up the good work. You know how to not only state your point of view, but to defend it with facts, truth and belief! You are the definition of a “Warrior Poet.” You took these professors to the battlefield, challenged their beliefs and managed to defend your beliefs in a very intellectual and non-accusatory way while additionally remaining calm, cool, confident, and collected. (Warrior) You did this in the best way possible. By being “poetic” in your approach. (Poet) You’ve got an A in my book too! Good job Ma’am! 👍🏼
You did an amazing job of keeping your cool. Well done.
One upside of philosophy survey courses are they expose a student to different ways of thinking about what is good/true that they can try on for themselves, but I agree with your criticism that it’s easy, without a skilled teacher, to end up regurgitating the ideas of others without attempting to integrate these ideas into your own understanding.
"The final weapon is the brain, all else is supplemental "
John Steinbeck from his last and unfinished work, The Acts of King Arthur and his Noble Knights.
This is my wife's grandfather and he was a very wise man.
Enjoyed the survey of the eras that led to where we are. Nice quick, concise summary. As others have said, keep this stuff coming!
Just found this channel. Very impressed so far. You can tell he knows his stuff because of how comfortable he is showing his real personality. He shares his knowledge without ego and trying to impress you with what a badass he is. It's usually the loudest ones who depend on the tough guy approach to get their points across. He seems to be the epitome of the quiet professional. Those who know, know what that means.
These are your best works honestly. Don't get me wrong I love the gun stuff. But this kinda thing is far more important. Thanks for this.
I’m 21 and I feel like I can never talk about things like this with most of my friends I’ve always been a very deep thinker and I feel disconnected from most people my age
talk to older, or more mature people.
Talk to them. Don't give up on them. They were cheated of being challenged along their path. You are now in their path. Help them.
Those of your generation were overwhelmingly immersed in leftist lies and propaganda by their so called teachers. It's The fault of previous generations who allowed Moral relativism and Marxism to be spoon fed to kids from K-12 and then have their indoctrination completed in the universities. So when our society falls from within (and it will) it will be up to people like you to lead others out of darkness. I'm sorry that my and other generations failed you by letting these vermin traitors take over the educational systems.
I couldn't agree more. I feel like I can't talk to other people my age because I would like to talk about subjects like this and I've tried many times but they seem to always not listen and start joking around with each other. It sucks
This content is much appreciated Sir.
I don't understand how the enlightenment period is considered a failure. That period in our history is what laid the framework for most of our modern systems of government, scientific discovery, economics, and religion. Between John Locke, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Hume, Voltaire, and more, they tested the boundaries and put forth new ideas that changed history. One could argue that the United States is the child of the Enlightenment period.
Holocaust and Soviet Union were products of Enlightenment.
Great video, found this channel through some of the guest appearances/shooting videios, and they're great. Will definitely be watching a lot more of what you do.
One of my favorite lines has always been "everything is relative". Yes, truth is relative to the analytical framework that you're speaking in. To say that to a certain degree truth is absolute, you've essentially assumed or are speaking within an analytical framework. Totally valid, but it's a distinction worth noting. Again, solid content.
Nah that didn't hurt at all Mr. Lovell i quite enjoy your videos . Yes i referred to you as Mr. Lovell its with respect although i am 50 going on 51 i feel that given your military service it is respect where its due Thank you for this enlightening video
"The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it."
Bertrand Russell
“Ur mum gay”-literally everyone.
We’re all philosophers.
Awesome 👏. Thank you for explaining to me that I’m not crazy. I’ve tried to talk to millennials about this very subject and they talk to me like I’m crazy or too stupid to understand post- modernism. Or what’s even worse is that they won’t acknowledge that they are post-modernists. They deny absolutely everything and stubbornly argue “my truth”. It’s so exasperating. There is no possible way to argue with someone who will not acknowledge the truth, because truth is relative. Sigh.
And then they try to tell me about my white privilege. 🙄
I’m one of the youngest Baby Boomers, so I have a little bit of the post- modern education but mostly I’m solid in my evangelical Christian upbringing from my parents who were of the Greatest Generation.
Thank you again. I’m also ex-military and subscribed to your channel for the home defense and gun videos.
I benefited from this video as well.
Thank you 🙏🏻
Keep up the great work👍
Please don't believe we're all like that. Many of us millennials are sane.
I have had the exact same experiences. Thought I was going crazy as well. Nice to see I am not alone.
I try to avoid attaching myself to any particular group or brand but this is the type of content that makes me happy to buy your expensive shirts and rep your brand (dare I say our brand). These are the types of conversations our society desperately needs. The schools won't do it so I guess we the people must step up. Thank you for leading the way.
Criticises teaching the history of philosophy - starts talking about the history of philosophy.
Criticises relativism - says it's okay to if you don't agree with everything he says.
So after 4 years in the military and 5 years at a Fortune 500 company, I started college last week and in an English class I started reading the textbook...I see exactly what you’re talking about. The damn textbook rejects truth.
any English class that uses a textbook instead of literature, other than grammar and word books, sounds like bs to me...
Steven welcome to college in 2019.
@@pkmachinegun honestly... i think you should check out other schools asap, my school has english classes too but we either only write essays (writing classes) or read literature, took a class last semester that only dealt with Shakespearean tragedies lol
This is why they say 80-90% of college students are now female.
Oh man, tell me about it. I went to school back in 2009 and the only place such poison was found, was in a Women's Studies class I attended. Everyone I knew to come out of it was a man hating cultist (Not even joking... Not even a little bit) and I wanted to know why, as I'm not Groucho Marzx, who goes around saying "I don't know what it is, but I'm against it!"
Shoot forward to 2017, I was trying to wrap up my degree and pretty much every class was infected with that poison... Like it spidered out and afflicted everything. English, Psychology, Sociology, Behavioral Science, Philosophy, etc etc. They were all Feminist promoting platforms. Leavong me like "Yep, this explains a lot."
He is certainly right that a part of contemporary philosophy is really history of philosophy. It might be worth pointing out that there is also another part of contemporary analytic philosophy that is quiet different. There are subjects, such as philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, ontology, metaphysics and so on, where people engage in highly specific questions, that are discussed in a very clear and unyielding manner. Unfortunately, these questions are set in a rather technical framework, that is very difficult to penetrate if you are not comfortable with math (or more precisely, with philosophical logic).
Since he focuses on the notion of truth, let me give you an example. Ever since Alfred Tarski’s ground braking work, most people in the debates dismiss the relativistic nonsense he mentions. The general feeling is basically that the notion of truth must somehow be spelled out along the following line:
The sentence “Snow is white.” is true if and only if the fact that snow is whit obtains.
Truth depends on the world. It is a property of a sentence or a proposition. Given this, we can apply logic to analyze the logical relations between sentences and to derive conclusions by logical deduction.
This part of philosophy is largely unknown to the general public, but I sincerely hope it gets more exposure - suffice it to say, if truth depends on the world, then it does not depend on your feelings.
Thanks John.
I am proud to be Gen X.
Your generation is excellent.
Really enjoy your point of view.
I'm a big fan.
I agree, this stuff is much more important than just the skills. Thank you for making these videos.
Hey man, only just come across your channel and I'm liking this video a great deal.
As a fellow Millenial - and for the record, I don't know too many in our generation who feel a particular attachment to Postmodernism - I find the whole idea about it to be nothing more than a justification for anti-intellectualism. Weirdly enough, it's mostly been people of an older generation that seem most in tune with it in my experience. I showed my friends evidence of the British Royal Family having the power to dissolve parliament, and they still didn't believe the evidence in writing from UK legislation with the crest of the Crown and the Queen's official stamp on there, yet they still didn't buy it.
Postmodernism isn't worth the time of day to me, and any serious academic marking my coursework as a student wouldn't allow me to tell them I deserve a higher mark because the marking criteria is different to me as a justification for not meeting the learning outcomes. That's just a sad display of a fragile ego.
hey john. I was born in 1999 and I can relate to many of the sentiments you voice in this video. it's on us to set a good example for our misguided contemporaries.
One thing that may have caused Millennials to be so dramatically worse than those who preceded them is the fact that they grew up just as human history entered the greatest and most fundamental paradigm shift, the digital omnipresent information age.
This I believe has caused a chasmic rift between the Millennials and their parents, and the resulting generation gap from hell all but destroyed their parents ability to relate virtues and life lessons into this fundamentally different reality.
Your not a millenial. You are generation z. Same as me
False. The millennial generation is defined as being born between 1982 through 2004.
Thanks for putting in the time to write all that and for your opinion. I know from experience that it takes time to write something like that
Caleb Brinkley I would disagree. The beginning and ending of generations are kind of arbitray in the grand scheme of things but just cause, I'd argue that a new generation begins when they can start influencing the world around them or the world before them has changed into a new one. Usually a 20 year mark (but there are also generational strapplers who can ID with a prior generation or the one after them depending on what they experienced). So to me, the millennial generation begins1979 and ends 1999. If you were an adolescent or child or infant in the 90s the world you would soon know was becoming a vastly different place than the ones your parents knew, the norms werr shifting, and the people born within these timeframes I feel would relate to that change more easily (we can argue for 1978 or 2000 but anything post 2001 is a stretch and goes into the gen z spectrum IMO).
Fantastic video
"The Enlightenment" played a large role in the creation of the USA.
That's hard to see today..
Shhh don't say stuff like that to Monarchists/Fascists, their brains'll divide by 0.
John, Thank You for this "rant". This is maybe the most sensible thing I've heard in years, at least as it relates to hopefully opening the eyes and minds of a couple of generations of Americans that I feel are on the wrong path. Whether by their own doing or by the combined societal and academia driven brainwashing, they are on a path of destruction. I'm 59 years old so I guess it's fair to note that there is my gererational life experienced relativity forming my opinions, but my agreement with everything you said, especially your message of absolute truth, cannot be written off by the naysayers of today. Those who are always quick to ignore facts, and usually by pointing at the obsolescence of previous generations and consequently writing off the opinions of said generations as antiquated rants.
I recently discovered WPS on you tube and have been impressed with your knowledge and straightforward honesty.
I have several young people in my life that I am going to share this with in hopes of them not only taking it to heart but in hope that they share the message with their contemporaries. I'm already subscribed and look forward to more content in the future.
Thank You for you're service to this great country, and Thank You for your channel.
As a new viewer of your channel, a millennial myself, I think that what you are saying here is greatly important. One of the largest downfalls of our generation is that truth is subjective, that something can be “your truth, but not mine.” Thank you for saying as much!
Education these days is teaching what to think instead of how to think.
I've started to notice a lot of highly motivated, educated, successful millennials lately. I think the generation gets a bad rap as a whole. Compared to the baby boomers especially. The baby boomers didn't have student loan debt, they had a booming economy that they destroyed and they are now retiring with pensions, social security and a 401k. It's a way different standard today.
Eh, I'd hardly say the end of that level of prosperity was the fault of the baby boomers. It was coming, America could only hold on to industrial dominance for so long after WWII wiped out our competition. I'd like to see why you say it's their fault, rather than the rest of the world catching up to our industrial capacity
ChaseTheStars because they were the ones in power when millennials were born and you can only do as your parents taught you and let you do. One generation makes the next
There is a rather large gap between millennials and baby boomers called Generation X - the greatest generation that straddled the old and new, and are the creators of the world today - The first gamers, the first users of mobile tech, inventors of the internet, the last generation to have real social skills untainted by teenage years on mobile phones like millennials have been - basically generation X are the pinnacle of humanity, and millennials are the first step down towards the decline
"You have an exact number of hairs on your head...."
Absolute truth: I have many fewer hairs on my head than you have on your head.
I love philosophy but lots of folks will probably think my philosophical outlooks are a very mixed bag:
- I'm all for emphasizing personal responsibility in life choices
- I'm all for limited government, BUT I'm also for helping those who need help (within limits)
- I don't believe in any deities, but I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea or those who do
- I don't believe in the attempt to separate what "reason says" from what "God says" because the latter is always about some human being claiming what Gods says and people having to use reason to believe them - or not. The pretense of a distinction here is just that - a pretense. Reason has to be used no matter what.
- There may be absolute truth (however that's defined), but it seems largely irrelevant because we're fallible human beings and the task in front of us is determining what is true and what isn't by the limited and fallible reason and tools we have available to us.
- There either is a deity or there isn't, that is true, but it's also true there are either many deities or there isn't. It's valid to say there are Bigfoots or there aren't. These are valid dichomoty's but they don't really say anything either. What's important is what reason is there to believe in a deity or deities (or anything else) and how confident we fallible humans are about that.
- I'm for separation of church and state but I also think it's been taken way to far in too in many instances
- I believe in free will - but it may be the case that I don't have any choice but believe in it. (haha)
- Gun control is usually accomplished best with two hands. :)
I like this
John, you nail it every time. Glad to have found your channel. Thanks for speaking honestly. ✊
Holy cow I want to sit around a camp fire with this guy! I finds myself in a place in my life that I don’t have these conversations anymore. Seems like, when I was in college, I was friends with more people that thought differently from me and we would have these conversations all the time when camping. Now that I am older and associate myself with people that are more like me, these conversations don’t happen that often...I don’t feel challenged maybe?? GREAT subject and again, anytime you are in CO, let me know and let’s get a group of dudes together to fireside chat! Keep up the great content, sir.
Someone: you are technically a millennial
Me: crud, don't lump me in with them
John: I'm the millennial generation, I'm the oldest of the millennials.
John: Well if John is a millennial, that is the kind of millennial I want to be.
I wonder if he watches Jordan Peterson. Amazing channel.
+ibrahim hafiaz never heard of her/him. Maybe I'll check it out
He's a amazing professor who's taking a stand against postmodernism, couldn't recommend his channel enough.
John Lovell he is brilliant
John Lovell you owe it to yourself to give it a try. I find it amazing you haven't heard of Dr. Peterson given your argument here. I'd also recommend Jocko Willinck and Stefan Molyneux.
He is a clinical psycologist, he is concerned about the challenges of the mind, not science as a discipline.
Obviously he lack in rational thinking, being that he is religulous, but he is very very rarely wrong on any specifics.
And yeah, John Lowell, you should absolutely check out Jordan Petersen, I have a feeling it may almost turn into a bromance.
Petersen repeatedly obliterates PC libtard sophistry, with such ease that it reminds of your story about the most dangerous man in the room. The closest comparison would be if you know about Ben Shapiro.
The videos on guns and tactics make you a badass but your videos on uncensored philosophy are what makes you an idol for young alpha millennials to look up to amongst the pseudo intellectual garbage thats forced down our throats.
Matt if you dig this channel I'd like to also recommend to you Jocko Willinck's podcast/channel. Get after it!!!
"Alpha" is pseudoscience, it's kinda funny that people that believe in "Astrology for Males" complain about pseudo-intellectualism.
You can keep on ranting because I find there is deep understanding in the words you have spoken and the honesty you have in delivering them.
Good words, John! Proud to be a member of this community.
Good stuff sir
Thanks for taking a stand for Jesus, John.... keep fighting the good fight, brother!
Very well said John.
2+2 absolutely equals 4.
There are absolutes whether we like it or not.
It is very sad to see, and it's not just the "Millennial" generation, what is happening
to this great country and the world. You nailed it be calling it what it is, "Anti-philosophy".
Thank you for continuing to post up your insights and experience.
Don't know if you'll ever get to read this comment but, I at least wanted
to post a response. Thanks again.
Keep yourself safe.
Randy
Diogenes the Cynic living on his minimalist principles was a homeless man eating trash, with only a wooden bowl as his sole possession. until he saw a boy drinking from the river out of his cupped hands. this enraged Diogenes causing him to smash his bowl to pieces and screaming out how disgusted he was of himself for being extravagant
I found this channel 5 days ago, I wish I found it yrs ago. Keep up all the content.
Excellent! If all religions or philosophies are equally valid, then they are also equally invalid.
+Marty Tate brilliant
But that's still! a postmodernist way of thinking :P
All religions are wrong.. Only true God is Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity
all superstition is a waste of time
JC and the holy threesome is no better than other myths
I'm curious as to how someone like John Lovell reconciles the notion of believing in God. Taking from the argument of absolute truth mentioned. God either is or isn't. If God is, what evidence would be submitted to support such an idea? It's my opinion that faith is something upon which we rely when there is no evidence to support an idea with which we identify emotionally.
+Bellerophon 911 have you checked out my 2 videos entitled God and Gunfighting? I go way into it there. Also, my faith is not an optimistic guessing game, rather it is based on evidence and is reasonable. Let me know what you think of the videos bro
I'm a newly subscribed member to your channel. I've found many of your videos very informative for some of my friends new to the world of concealed carry and training. I'll give the suggested videos you mention some careful thought and respond soon. To be clear, it isn't my intention to be rude. I realize sometimes topics like this can spark heated sentiments.
Take care
+Bellerophon 911 we try to keep a pretty chill culture here. Respectfully disagreements are most welcome here sir
Eyewitness testimony:
While eyewitness testimony still has its place in our
legal system, it is fraught with error. More and more we are seeing just how
problematic eyewitness testimony can be using a simple game of telephone or
giving details of a description of an event or the simple act of remembering
details about a suspect’s height build or even color of clothing. Now combine these issues with the ignorance of the day, the religious zeal that is common in the middle eastern culture
along with a strong desire to believe in something that gives a sense of
certainty of everlasting life and you have a recipe for any number of fantastic
claims to come out of people’s mouths. Islam, another of the Abrahamic faiths
produces all sort of religious extremists believing that if they die in a holy war
that they will be rewarded with virgins in paradise.
Intelligent design
The
primary “evidence” you’ve presented points to the notion of intelligent design
in an effort to show proof of the existence of god. Example: “planets, stars
and moon.” This of course is an opinion I don’t share largely due to it being
fraught with flaws. While it is arguable that many great minds though history
once they’ve reach the limits of their understanding of a given subject point to intelligent design as an answer, it only shows that they lack knowledge to work out the answers as well as being a
bit awestruck and arguably influenced by religious symbolism prevalent in
culture. Coincidentally when this happens, they also stop contributing to
scientific discovery as well. Sir Isaac Newton is arguably one of the greatest
scientific minds of his day. In none of Newton’s writing does he make a reference to god until he tried to account for the movement of the planets in our solar system using a two bodied problem. In the late 1600’s Newton said :
“The six primary planets are revolved throughout in circles concentric with the sun and with motions directed toward the same parts and almost in the same plane. But is it not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions? This most
beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the
council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”
It wasn’t until P.S. Laplace came along in the late 1700’s using more advanced calculus
equations that Laplace was able to work out how the planets traveled in their
respective orbits. When Emporer,
Napoleon asked Laplace what role god played in the movement of the planets,
Laplace replied, “sir I had no need of that hypothesis.”
Hey John, as a person from a background in traditional martial arts, I completely agree that these type of videos are in a sense "more important" than the technical videos you make, although they are both interesting and purposeful. However, I disagree with some ideas you have. Firstly, regarding your philosophy professor: I think that a philosophy academic who has strong personal beliefs would likely not be a great philosophy academic as academia necessitates an open mind and critical thinking to be able to best analyze and research. If I had a strong idea of what truth was, I would not be motivated to study philosophy and any work I do in the field would probably be biased by my beliefs. There are exceptions to my idea that people with specific beliefs would make bad philosophy academics, but I think it's a valid line of thought and that your professor shouldn't automatically be dismissed for not shooting straight with you in this regard.
Mainly, I can't buy your idea that there is only absolute truth. 2+2=4 only because we humans have elected to use one number set that we all agree on, and because we define addition on that set. In other words, we (all people) defined it to be true so to say anything else will be a contradiction. There is only a single count of hairs on ones head because the count of hairs is a physical property that can be measured exactly. God either exists or does not exist, because the question of existence is binary in nature. Relative truth certainly exists for certain ideas that are not defined to be true, quantifiable or measurable, or binary, such as the judgement of how good a song is. You may not think a song is good at all, but I may think the melody is good and the vocals are bad, and someone else may thing the song is the best song ever, and these can all coexist and be perfectly true because we all have unquantifiable and nonbinary preferences that we may not even be consciously aware of. Are you suggesting that only one of these viewpoints is true?
Lastly, let's assume that everything you said is true and that moral relativity and relative truth are not good ways of thinking. Why are they a problem? I'm okay knowing that in a hypothetical war, if I were a soldier, I'd have to kill the enemy while they think I'm the enemy. I don't need to believe that I am good and they are bad and everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong and in fact I think doing so could be problematic, if my worldview was heavily distorted by mental illness or drugs, for example. Furthermore, I'm happy to go about my day and I'm motivated to better my life, while knowing that people may not agree with my worldview and vice versa because what I believe motivates me whether someone thinks it's true or not and in that sense, I don't really care how "true" outside bodies evaluate it to be. Perhaps this isn't what you mean when you talk about "relative truth" and I am misunderstanding in which case, if you could clarify I would greatly appreciate it. However, if this is what you were talking about, I'd like clarification on why this paradigm is a problem, in your opinion, because I live my life that way and I think it's going pretty well so if there are any issues with it, I'd like to know :P
All in all, I'm very glad you made this video because it gives people something to think about and I'm glad there's at least one person talking about guns and tactics on this site who has conviction and doesn't put fighting over everything else. Please don't interpret this comment as an expression of dislike for you; it is quite the opposite. If you have time to respond, again, that would be appreciated because this topic can be complex and I want to ensure I understand your train of thought, for my own body of knowledge.
+Ryan Samlalsingh open-mindedness is more of a spirit we should cultivate, but as we learn and grow in knowledge, we should become necessarily closed to many ideas. I am no longer open to the idea that the world is flat. I am not open to the idea of child sacrifice to appease the Son God. "The point of an open mind is like that of an open mouth. It is meant to close on something solid." -GK Chesterton
Yes, mathematics is, in a sense, a social construct, but over time, it has become accepted as truth, because, well, it works with an extremely high level of reliability. So, I guess it's the truth, because it works?
Works for me!
Of all your videos I’ve watched, this one is particularly encouraging. Great content bro. And that’s the truth!
You are spot on! I'm an American that studied Philosophy at a UK university. I found that when I would go home for the break and talk to my friends that had taken philo courses at their american unis, they seemed to know much more than me in terms of history of philosophy and particular philosopher's stances on issues but they had very little experience in conducting their own philosophical research.
I find that people discredit philosophy as a topic of study because most people find the specific theories or analyses to be too abstract or they simply disagree with them on fundamental levels. But they miss the point, that philosophy is not ACTUALLY the study of time, truth, political theory, math, etc. Philosophy is the study of reasoning and argumentation. Being good at philosophy means identifying how an argument or institution (based on certain assumptions) actually leads to its own contradiction or ought to be more justified than some other argument.
The actual method of philosophy is being lost on American Unis. I was happy to hear that you shared my same sentiment.
A top ten must read books Warrior Poet edition would be awesome!
Absolute truth is morally relative.
“Bankrupt post modern philosophy...”
Well said Warrior
Makes sense. I've known this but never heard someone articulate it so well..thanks
Good stuff John. Thank you. May God bless and keep you safe.
From Generation X to you John - “WORD brother! WORD! 🤜🏼👏🏽”
9:14 Um, morality is subjective. We can see things one way while others see it another. It's the society within which those views are held that decides what they believe and how they act accordingly.
You seem to be speaking of morality as a universal application rather than a personal one. The truth is that it can be discussed as either and entirely separately. Without a concrete and indisputable foundation to work from, Allah/Christ/Other religious base if any actually are such a thing, there is absolutely no way for people to agree on what is or isn't moral...at least with any consistency. No matter what framework you use to come to an ethical conclusion, some or your own personal value system will influence your evaluation of the subject at hand.
Truth isn't subjective though. Mathematics isn't a philosophical question. They're questions of arithmetic. Morality and truth like to play hide and seek, sometimes in unison and sometimes not. That said, arithmetics will never be philosophy. Truth itself is absolute. The perception is subjective. Humans cannot separate themselves from perception. If you claim that you can see the absolute you are saying that you are beyond perception. Sorry, but only God and maybe the dead can claim that. Maybe you should stick to guns.
Morality most certainly is subjective for those who do not believe that they will someday be required to give account to their maker. Life is short. You only have one chance to get it right.
So rather than 2 + 2 = 4,
2 (plus or minus 0.5) + 2 (plus or minus 0.5) = 4 (plus or minus 1) to account for the uncertainties of our measurements?
@@beavisroadhog9629 You can't even pinpoint what morality God believes into, without idiotically assuming that an invisible, unknowable God is somehow knowable by you, without taking into account that there are more than one versions of, even the Christian, "God". In fact, objective morality would demand to reject God, since his idea of morality is "everything I say is objectively moral, even if it contradicts something I said previously". Pfft.
PS: Also, why Life should be short? Why only one chance to get it right, and why infinite punishment for finite errors, by a god that purposefully makes it ambiguous what good vs. evil is, it's not like he visits every day to advise his flock or something.🤣
🤣
Man, I wish we could have served together. I would have enjoyed conversations with you in the field.
He was a ranger, right?
@@Paid2Win yeah.
Justin Powell I would likely have enjoyed the tours and such. Though my staff sargent was great once you got her trust earned. Then it was mostly a good time.
Iv been binge watching your videos man, best stuff on the internet in a while 👍
Very well done. This is a prime example of the Warrior mindset and the Poet in "Warrior Poet".