The updated timeline used in the video is here and in the description too drive.google.com/file/d/1IJkAYcN9w0G9Hy5V6PacYLb4hMlHitCW/view?usp=drive_link There's a lot more I need to add to it, so expect periodic updates! If you didn't see the original timeline video, it's here ua-cam.com/video/v7_J_daQkSU/v-deo.html
It should be noted that Plato didnt "say" anything. If one were to dig into his letters one may get closer to justifying that claim. [but] He wrote in dialogues. Nothing like "Thus i sayeth". One may wonder why he did that... [Nonetheless] U get Idealism right. And i love that. Still: much work yet ahead of thee, [us] friend. there's No such thing" as nothing" meanwhile -is an excellent song to play in the b/g. Cornell, not Mayer. [Rocks DO write excellent essays] Anyhow:
Small critique TIK but I think you should swap Hume and Burke around: Hume wrote his big work "A Treatise of Human Nature" in 1740, Burke wrote his earliest work "A vindication of natural society" in 1756. That, and Hume was born in 1711, Burke was born in 1729.
Hitler stated in a 1928 interview, "We might have called ourselves the Liberty Party. We chose to call ourselves National Socialists. We are not Internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just demands of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
@@kwestionariusz1 Yes, or as I described it "racial socialism". Of course, the Marxist Socialists and similar were not happy with that, but the truth hurts when your ideology detaches you from reality.
Considering that the total number of DELETIONS by the Italian fascist security forces against its own citizens equal in the few thousands, that's basically a tuesday to Stalin or Mao. I'd say that socialism DID went far enough.
Technically they argued the Italian Socialist Party didn't go far enough. "Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative." Mussolini
The ancient Hindu religion also believed the world was entirely made of thought. There is an old story about a king who knew a Hindu philosopher who claimed everything in the world was just thoughts in the mind. To test this theory, the king sent an elephant charging straight at the philosopher who, when he saw it coning ran like hell. The king then said to him, " you said everything is just thoughts, and yet I just saw you running away from that elephant." The philosopher replied, " You THOUGHT you saw me running from the elephant."
Yes this come to us through pythagoras.Idealism is hindu philosophy and use of symbols for magic mainly come from babylon.Pythagoras traveled to babylon and india for knowlegde and came back with this ideas in western world
This sounds like the "perception is reality" trap that leftists fall into. Yes, your individual reality is entirely 'perception'. But that perception is still a cause and affect relationship dictated by the laws of physics. I've met some "really smart people" who couldn't work their way out of this trap. These are the very same people who instantly changed from thinking Im a normal smart guy, to a devil because I 'support' Trump.
This video did a decent job of explaining one of the great errors in philosophy: the tribalistic camps that have arisen around exclusive ideas. For example, we all have a sense of fairness or justice, but we also understand that fairness or justice is also a matter of practical application. The ideal (idea) of justice or fairness exists in us all, but the application of it varies in practice. The attempt to sever the mindscape from the practical has caused many serious problems in philosophy. The truth is that both of these things necessarily exist.
The greatest baggage from the weird philosophical gobbledygook drawing battle-lines around and through these concepts would be that it completely ignores the fact that perfectly reasonable people can look at something like Justice, and say "well, IDEALLY things would be like that, but this is not an ideal world, and in a PRACTICAL world we would have to admit that sometimes, or most of the time, things are actually very different, or even completely the opposite of the ideal, mostly because human nature runs counter to this ideal...." The usual story of what happens to most lottery winners, for example, highlights the vast gulfs between the ideal world, where a Marxist might believe that giving everyone the same ration of wealth would make everyone equally wealthy, and the practical world, where in fact you could give millions of dollars to the average lottery winner, and in a few years they'll be as poor as they ever were before, and miserable, with a long trail of wreckage behind them, because there's a practical difference between wealth that is obtained easily and wealth that is earned and worked for, and a practical difference between the skills needed to determine what is really valuable and make the most of that value to invest wisely and maintain and build on wealth instead of throw money around on temporary fun and costly status symbols, and a practical difference in the friends that a self-made wealthy person learns how to cultivate and look to for advice and guidance, versus the "friends" who can be counted on to flock to lottery winners looking to mooch on hand-outs, and so on. A great deal of it comes down to a failure of many of these philosophers to make any use of cynicism to temper their idealism: even well-meaning people are corrupt and foolish, they have their bad days, they aren't often very smart even when (or especially when) they are well-educated, sometimes people are downright evil and can use pleasant-sounding ideals to disguise ulterior motives, or find ways to use nice-sounding ideals to further their own worst natures, and so on. A lot of philosophers who were, no doubt, convinced of the best intentions of their own ideals have found that implementing their ideals in the real world brings out the worst in their followers, and themselves, assuming they have the insight and grasp on the reality of what they are doing to realize it. And I find that too many of them even refuse to entertain any question of their ideals, under the conviction that practical or cynical concerns over their ideals are direct threats from a dirty material world to the theoretical purity of their idealism: as long as their ideals can float untouched and unquestioned and unsullied in the purity of a theoretical realm, the aims toward those ideals can be carried out in the material world toward a corresponding material perfection against the resistance of evil anti-philosophers, or something..... As if the material world is actually a reflection of their ideal world, where their ideals make reality, as long as there is nobody else there to contradict them, a problem that could ideally be solved by eliminating people who disagree from reality until the only people who remain are those who can preserve the purity of the ideal.... People don't work that way in the real world, not even the philosophers are free from the "errors" that make the ideals impractical and impossible! The idealists, in other words, do not understand or live in the practical world -and honestly, they don't seem to live in or understand the "material" world, either, being so lost looking at their favorite idealist trees, that they cannot really see very far into their own philosophical forests..... Looking around us, it seems clear to me that we need fewer idealists, dreamers, and philosophers, and more cynics, pessimists, and practical people. Especially in light of the number of people who have been senselessly butchered in the name of idealistic dreams and impractical philosophies and ideologies over the last hundred years alone!
@@pietrayday9915 Exactly so. This stresses the importance of things like decentralized political power and economic models. The academic idealist is hubristic in his ideals and ideologies, and such arrogance leads to power and economic centralization which encourages abuse, exploitation, and is a wonderful way to spread bad ideas universally. By decentralizing political authority and economic action, we reduce the risk of abuse and fraud, among other undesirable effects.
This is why iam a substantial dualist.Both mind and Matter exsist.The apple is there it exsist but our mind due to past experiences regocnizes certain qualities that are found in a bunch of fruits and therefore call them apples despite them being red,green spherical shape or trapesian.We have pattern regocnition abilities.
Me: *A serious student of both history and philosophy. Constantly trying to learn more about both, and fascinated by how they interact.* Also me: *Snickering uncontrollably every time TiK says "pen-ness"*
You left out the part where the UK says, except Christians. Seems to me it's fine to hate on Christians there, since they are arrested for silent prayer.
Like (white) men they are exempt because they are perceived by the Left as to have power. Racism, sexism and other isms flow from power. Those who have it against those who haven't to oppress it. Therefore women can't be sexist towards men, because they have no power, people of color cannot be racist because they have no power and other belief system can't be prejudiced against Christianity, because they have no power. As TIK once said, marxist may share your language, but they don't share your dictionary. Their accusations and statements NEVER mean what people think they do.
He knows nothing about Christianity. He should read some Josephus (a Jew), and about every atheist I have heard are more educated on the topic. I am not implying his only sources should be Christian. He said Christains believe in an objective reality, which is crazy. Idk how I am supposed to even listen to his trash anymore if he's going to twist things. He never has a source for his claims about Christainity either.
No minecraft player ever thought that because when you load the chunks in the world they are loaded for everyone on the server, that the players should thus create an all encompassing collective state in that world.
Give them time. Give them time. If Minecraft isn't already a religion or economic or political philosophy that some nut somewhere might think is worth deleting people over, someone will think of a way to turn it into one in a few years, I guarantee it....
I graduated in Philosophy and Theology, and I look back at it often and just facepalm and think that I did not learn anything of practical value. That's not to say that knowing philosophical history has no value (it has value like learning history in general), just that I sense that I learned more about people's rambling thoughts than anything useful. Today, what I respect is the labourer. By that I don't mean in a Communist sense - I simply mean, anyone who produces or creates something. The act of creation influences reality. Building a building, putting up a podcast, writing code, painting art, managing a business - while philosophy and thought go into these things for sure, my essential thought is that the bulwark and foundation of society matters more than wondering what reality "is." The true philosophers are those who do something.
Creating thoughts can also be highly valuable, (if they are valuable thoughts). Value is always subjective, at least in the way im defining it. So something more often than not has highly different value to different people. A woodmaker would offer way more for the same wood than a plumber. So your thoughts have different value to different people aswell. Thoughts can often be solutions to problems. And the world is full of problems. You don't need to implement the solution to be of value. Enabling it and giving people the right methods also can bring tremendous value. And that is in one part, basically what a consultant does. He helps solve problems, often only conceptually. But there is a very important point: the illusion of knowledge. Tons of people think they know how to solve something or have their theories, but actually they know jack all. Actual solutions are a completly different thing than theories, and therefore one has to use reality as ones master.
Rand would disagree. You need philosophy in order to produce, even if you only hold a philosophy implicitly. For example, you need to know if reality exists or how causality works in order to grow crops or hunt animals for food.
YES. To be fair, though, even the republican/libertarian experiment of the US Constitution was a product of the same revolutionary trail of "liberal" philosophy that produced Fascism, Marxism, and so many of the other "-isms" of the last couple hundred years. The distinguishing characteristic, I would argue, is in the relative skepticism and cynicism of the American Republic, compared to the utopian ideals of competing philosophies: The US Constitution is deliberately written as a maze of interlocking and contradictory checks--and-balances, not because its architects thought it would make for a more efficient and elegant form of perfection for a utopian government led by well-meaning philosopher-kings over a wise and benevolent people... rather, it's designed to hamper and hamstring its own government to the greatest extent possible, in the name of preventing the inevitable cast of corrupt scoundrels and monsters that would try to seize control of it from doing as much damage as possible. The Framers of the Constitution were under none of the illusions that most revolutionaries seem to be bound by, that there is some idealized liberal State on material Earth just waiting for the right idealistic philosophy to be conjured into the sphere of imagination, to lead them towards a utopian world if only they could be freed from the deceptions and limits of some mystical "demiurge" and its Capitalist agents on Earth. Rather, they worked with the understanding that the Republic they were crafting depended on the wisdom and self-restraint of an educated and moral people to keep it on track, but would persist under a built-in time-limit of the inherent imperfection and corruption and laziness and ignorance of man - "A Republic, IF you can keep it!" Too many competing philosophies assume some inherent goodness in man, which can be freed to maintain a "perfect" philosophical construct forever and ever, if only they can be freed to do so through the pure benevolence of the State, perhaps once a class, race, or whatever of unbelievers with competing philosophies has successfully been purged from the earth..... That includes "Our Democracy". One can't help noting with a sinking feeling of dread that "Our Democracy" is assumed to be benevolent and trustworthy to hold absolute power, and cannot withstand the criticism, cynicism, doubt, and pessimism that we could level against the Republic from the day it was founded, up to a few years ago, or even now, while "Our Democracy" races to blot it from American history and replace it with something alien and ominous and un-American..... The Republic worked as long as we all agreed that it was imperfect and best treated with delicacy and suspicion, and restrained from power. "Our Democracy" cannot withstand any doubt or question - every criticism or restraint on its grasp for total power is a "Threat to Our Democracy", and the only imperfection it will admit is that it has not yet successfully purged itself of all dissent and doubt and "fash" restraint on its power in the name of establishing by force a utopia on Earth unbound by "what has been".... I don't trust any government, but I especially distrust any government that cannot be criticized, or which demands absolute power over me, or which insists on its own pure and infallible benevolence in the name of a Utopia that can be achieved if only enough people either shut up, get in line, and follow orders, or just fall as conveniently as possible into a grave on the "wrong side of history".....
@@pietrayday9915And both Adams and Jefferson knew this! That is both, from opposite ends of their contemporary political spectrum, came to the conclusion that a "New Revolution" would be necessary every 5-7 generations. (Andrew Jackson should have been the first of these, but the moment was "passed on," a bad habit of American politics even [Especially] today)
@@pietrayday9915 "To be fair, though, even the republican/libertarian experiment of the US Constitution was a product of the same revolutionary trail of "liberal" philosophy that produced Fascism, Marxism, and so many of the other "-isms" of the last couple hundred years." The US as conceived and in its first 30 years of existence was the closest humanity has come to the true sovereignty of the individual. We've lost that, particularly as a result of the Civil War, but for a brief time it was there. Now the US is basically just a federal republic where sovereignty is reserved to the top of the pyramid and occasionally licensed out to favored groups and classes.
Just been on Metatrons channel and had to vent in the chat when idiots start on about TIK being a Yasi sympathiser and apologist. Damn TIK you must be hitting home with some of these fools when they have to blatantly lie about your brilliant content! Keep up the good work mate.
Yes, for people who are not immersed in philosophy, it can be very difficult, which is why I spoke slowly and went through it the way I did in the hopes that people would be able to grasp it. Of course, someone has criticsed me saying "you could have said it all in 10 minutes", but my goal is to reach the widest audience as possible, so I had to spend the time to make sure it was all clear.
@@TheImperatorKnight I have long thought that you can teach/explain almost anything as long as you start with a common understanding. Your approach was perfect in this regard.
@@TheImperatorKnight So what am i then Tik? - i dont vote and i dont believe in democracy per say .....because for over all my lifetime i can see fascism at work within our representational democracy/judicial systems, parliament etc in the uk. All im interested in is making sure that our governments , from one government to another , are to be examined with a fine tooth comb under fact and law .....and to made equal under the law with everyday citizens i.e access to one law , one rule , and a shit load of us to make sure that stays universal and equal...no matter if that can create inequality along the way. Law education in schools etc what does that make me?
There’s a lot of hard work behind this explanation. Probably, one of the most clear presentation of what “Fascism” was, in its own Philosophical structure. All explained in a very easy way. Moreover, the difference with Nazism, the consequent “fusion” in Nazifascim. Nice Job TikH!
29:44 Small correction (kinda). "Looking" can mislead the viewer. Looking at something like a subatomic particle isn't like looking at a screen. You need to use incredibly powerful technology which will interact with the particle. The change in behaviour comes from the interaction between the instruments and the particle.
@Bean-boi I'm afraid you are mistaken. Firstly, the human eye can perceive a single photon so you can in fact sense a solitary quantum event. Yes, to generate some kinds of sub-atomic particles you do need massively powerful particle accelerators like the LHC for creating a Higgs boson, but many other quantum phenomena don't require that at all. Early quantum experiments involved hiring mostly young women to sit in absolute darkness watching scintillation screens for flashes of light from single particles striking the phosphorous. By the way, it is absolutely the case that quantum mechanics cannot describe the process of a measurement and in fact there is not a complete theory that encapsulates the statistics of quantum mechanics and a precise mathematical description of a measurement. Scarily enough measurement in quantum mechanical theory flirts dangerously with idealism in that it is the "observer" who collapses the wave function. Schroedinger's cat is actually a critique of this problem.
@@andrewdelaix You'd kidding right? Are you seriously saying that being in the vicinity of an electron being fired is the equivalent of observing it? That's just not what observation is.
@@Bean-boi An electron interacts with its environment very often, as it interacts with all the electromagnetic fields around it. And gravity as well. Photons do neither of that, so it is easy to observe strange quantum effects with them. In physics, an observation is a measurement of any kind, and is not possible without interaction.
@@Bean-boi An electron hitting a phosphorescent screen generating some photons a few of which hit your eye: all quantum until it hits your eye. I'm saying that the vagaries of quantum mechanics leak right up into your physical senses and that you are in fact a quantum detector.
@@TheImperatorKnight You did, but I'm old and plagued with mental health issues aplenty. I'm bad with remembering details like these, so it needs repetition.
If you are new or just not an expert of philosophy then the book The Quest for a Moral Compass by Kenan Malik is excellent, really helps to frame everything, well, lots...
"I think, therefore I am" - Descartes "I am, therefore I think" J.P, Sartre, Stephen Hawking "I am, therefore I am" - Popeye, Stone Cold Steve Austin "I think, therefore I think" - Hegel - (Pure thought thinking about pure thought - characterization by Bertrand Russell) Bishop Berkeley might have changed his mind if Samuel Johnson had connected with a right hook to his nose instead of merely kicking a rock .....
"At first, I thought that these German hermeneuticians were simply ill-served by their translators into English. But my German friends assure me that Heidegger, Gadamer, et al. are equally unintelligible in the original. Indeed, in a recently translated essay, Eric Voegelin, a philosopher not normally given to scintillating wit, was moved to ridicule Heidegger’s language. Referring to Heidegger’s master work, Sein und Zeit (Being and Time), Voegelin refers to the meaningless but insistent repetition of a veritable philosophical dictionary of phrases as the Anwesen des Answesenden (”the presence of that which is present”), the Dingen des Dings (”the thinging of the thing”), the Nichten des Nichts (”the nothinging of the nothing”), and finally to the zeigenden Zeichen des Zeigzeugs (”the Pointing sign of the pointing implement”), all of which is designed, says Voegelin, to whip up the reader “into a reality-withdrawing state of linguistic delirium.”3" Murray N Rothbard
idealism is a major issue. I think it's leading to Amoral sophists in the modern day. I see so many similarities. They say that it's all relative, and social constructs.
I have been thinking for a long while that fascism is strongly democratic and the logical conclusion of certain types of demacracy. I guess this will further my reasons to think so. Thanks as always TIK
Yeah. As soon as it's accepted that what a majority or plurality of people think somehow determines right and wrong, you're pretty much doomed to land in the realm of fascism. And manufactured consent is left completely unaccounted for.
@@SepticFuddy I mean, democracy can come in more ways than a majority of people who impose things to others, not only it can come from a minority too but its usually the politician in question who is actually the one in control. People cant see these traits are inherent in one way or another in both democracy and fascism, they swallowed the propaganda that lies clearly about democracy, dont really know what fascism is about and dont see the same traits between the 2. They actually suport both without really knowing. People cant conceive democracy as someone that isnt good (as if the way that something is chosen or imposed said if it is good or bad) therefore these things happen and deny certain things to be democratic
As a student of history i came here for the very detailed and well researched battle reports. As a student of the human condition im staying for the deep dive into philosophy and meta physics. Well done Sir Knight
I think what Gentile meant by the world being created by the mind was that it is human action based on ideas, rather than material conditions controlling everything as in Marxism, which dictates its ultimate course in a societal sense.
Even if that is so, as is almost always the case, what a philosopher MEANT is perhaps far less important than what his most active and fanatical followers HEARD, or imagined, or wanted to believe.... ua-cam.com/video/NFPIGNua5WM/v-deo.html
@@angadsingh9314 Why? It takes a lot of effort to change a constitution. Usually a 2/3rds or 3/4 majority. No party EVER gets such a supermajority. As long as they adhere to the basic rules of political parties why should any party be criminalized for having an abhorrent opinion? You don't have democracy or freedom of speech if new parties that threaten the established ones can be 'verboten' on a technicality. Also, by that logic the US Democrats should be forbidden, as quite a few Democrats, like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have said things that are hostile to the constitution. The 1st and 2nd amendments in particular.
@angadsingh9314 So, all the authors of the Anti-Federalist Papers should have been rounded up? There's a long distance between saying that the Constitution was poorly written, and taking up arms.
The explaintion of the platonic forms here is extremely shallow. If it does interest you, I'd definitely do some research outside of these videos if it interests you.
Hey TIK, I wonder what you think of HistoryLegends? His coverage on the Russo-Ukrainian war is superb despite misinformation and disinformation from both sides, his simple mapping editing is very accurate enough for Russian soldiers unironically recording themselves watching his videos and Ukrainian soldiers are glad that he isn't spouting a dangerous amount of optimism (yes, the mainstream media is still insisting the war is in Ukraine's favor). His military knowledge is adequate for the coverage (like Deep Battle Doctrine and pre-Napoleonic battles). Of course, covering from both sides' perspective has gained a lot of flak from what you can consider as the Wheraboos of NATO (NAFO) and is often smeared as Russian propaganda despite having done videos covering Ukraine's strengths and perspective and has repeatedly revised history as the military situation changes.
Personally prefer Military & History when it comes to covering the Russo-Ukraine war. HistoryLegends is more bias than you may think criminally so sometimes. He's no pro russian mil blogger but sometimes I question his authenticity. I used to watch him but.. he ended up being overly sensational and I can not stomach his videos similar to say The Enforcer.
@@Alte.Kameraden HistoryLegends is biased towards the Ukrainians, but he is also objective enough to not overtly cloud his videos. And when the Russians win he will tell so in his style. But he most definitely wants the Ukraine to win. Overall there are lots of youtubers talking about the Ukraine war. And I reckon the more of them you follow the better informed you will be. Certainly a lot better then what you get from the media. It's bizarre how much open source close to real time information can be had about this war. Imagine having that in WW2, with Rommel's social media channel duking it out with Monty's social media channel with endless videos on who got to hammer the other the most.
This is where [Ka*]nt got it wrong. The whole Phenom/Nominal world. It makes enormous leaps of faith which aren't supported. ..I'm so glad you get into this because it really is at the heart of much of WW2. They had been a long time coming, and suddenly the damn burst. It's hubris among "The Land of Poets and Philosophers." (*You know how I spell it.)
"The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated. Let the open enemy to it be regarded as a Pandora with her box opened and the disguised one as the Serpent creeping with his deadly wiles into Paradise." James Madison 1834
There is a great video on the flawed political spectrum that everyone thinks of with left and right. Its called Government who needs it by Greg Salmieri and Onkar Ghate
@@endo4137 Fun to roleplay as the Lalafell version of a Social Revolutionary. "I fight for the glorious Lalafellian Revolution against the Tall Oppressors. Too long has the Talls thrived off Lalafellian Labor, eating our crops greater than their share. Meanwhile our Lalafellian Farmers and Miners toil in hardship. No more! We shall strike down the talls and take our rightful place at the top of society as the rightful ruling class over all of Eorzea." Can literally picture a Bun giving a head pat shortly after making me go "Quit it! Take me seriously!" lol
Always a joy to get out brains and preconceptions bent and reduced to the fundaments by this brilliant thinker. And it's free. Thank you sir, always a pleasure to listen and learn.
The United Kingdom doesn’t have any set laws, it works on common law - precedent. (What ever a judge feels like, at that particular moment, usually depending on who he is dealing with). ..................... Cue comments based on my profile picture, rather than the intellectual debate.
Christianity is considered objective in the sense that we believe in a reality that exists independently of human thoughts or perceptions. According to Christian teachings, God created a real, physical world, and moral truths are grounded in God's nature, making them universally valid and unchanging, regardless of personal beliefs or cultural differences. This belief in a fixed, external reality and absolute moral truth makes Christianity fundamentally objective. Christianity doesn't fit with the idea that reality is just a mental or spiritual construct. I don't understand why TIK says Christians believe in subjective reality and idealism. It seems like he's mixing up Christianity and Gnosticism, which are not the same.
One point of confusion is that there are several different forms of Christianity. Firstly, there are those in the Augustine/Aquinas tradition, which believes in an objective physical world which we can understand beginning with our senses, but with reason and representation building on (and corrected by) what we perceive. Dominician Roman Catholics are probably the most faithful to this tradition, but many (orthodox) Protestants (excluding those which don't tend to focus on philosophy) would also belong to it; while Eastern Orthodox tend to be more neo-Platonists (I do think that one weakness of this video is that it mischarterises the neo-Platonists, who were not the forerunners of idealism to the extent that is implied). The Dominician tradition is probably closer to TIK's own objectivism than most of the rest of the chart (although obviously still differs from it in important respects, such as being theistic rather than atheistic). But on the other hand, you have liberal Protestants and liberal "Catholics" who are very much influenced by Hegel and the traditions that followed from Hegel (and are closer to gnosticism than Christianity). Hegel certainly thought he was rescuing God and what he could of Christianity from the materialists, who he could see were heading towards atheism. But he did it in a way that completely contradicts and undermines apostolic Christianity. Nonetheless, many did follow his lead (or at least were influenced by him to a greater or lesser extent) and still call themselves Christian. This might be the source of TIK's (and Peikoff's) confusion. I also think the video mischaracterises Hume, and the position he attributes to Hume is closer to that of Hobbes. Hume believed that sense impressions form ideas in our minds, which are distinct from the real objects, and any thinking we do (such as attributing certain things as causes and others as effect) is thinking about those ideas, and thus has nothing to do with the real world. Thus talk about cause, effect, secondary qualities, morality, etc. are all fictions, because (according to Hume) they only exist in our minds. The only reliable things are the directly perceived ideas, and abstract proofs in geometry (which are disconnected from the real world). Kant was greatly impressed by Newton's physics, but then also read Hume, and then realised that Hume's thought completely undermined Newton's theories (which would reside in the world of ideas in Hume's thought). So he pulled the trick of saying that they might only exist in the mind, but that doesn't make them any less real than things in the physical world. Thus Newton's laws, God, and so on, could reside in the world of our ideas and have just as much claim to existence as anything in the phenomenological world. This is entirely the wrong answer to the problem, and obviously after Kant things only got worse. Hume is certainly in the empiricist tradition, but he did not deny the human mind or the existence of ideas in the mind as forming our awareness of reality and, as such lies a step between the Materialist Empiricist tradition and Kant. I would also dispute that modern science is Empiricist. It is Empirical, which states that we can make a partial representation of reality, and our thoughts on that representation and theories built on it do tell us something (or a great deal) about reality, but with all of this reasoning carefully constrained and then tested by observation and experiment. The empiricists have observation and experiment, but forbid us from constructing theoretical representations and models on top of this; it denies the usefulness of theoretical science (or certainly do so once we get to Hume). I still think that Ockham and Rosseau ought to be mentioned in any discussion of the origins of the various forms of socialism. Ockham was the father of nominalism (the denial of formal and final causes), and represents the break from the logical and realist (in the sense of accepting universals, albeit in Aristotle's conception subsisting in particular beings rather than some third realm) tradition of Aquinas and the very top of TIK's chart and the modern forms of empiricism and idealism. And the influence of Rosseau, with his belief in fundamental human goodness marred only by individualism, and of a social contract derived from the general will of society, on the development of socialism should be obvious.
I think you're doing really important work showing these ideas outside a classroom and making them available. Personally, I think the philosophy of empiracism vs idealism is all very much mistaken. It should be obvious to anyone that both are limited in scope in a way that makes the argument silly. The pen, is a pen because humans created a pen. Penness is the quality of being a pen, which we created to instruct others on what a pen should be. Along the way to Platonism a mistake was made- God does not decide the forms we see and understand. Along the way to Empiracism, a mistake was made- there is a collective understanding of the forms. The problem with either side is that neither of these are made by God, but entirely by men. When I speak "Pen" to you, you imagine "pEn", but we can agree on the nature of it and create "peN", "PEn" or perhaps "PENn". Because all of this is just a lot of talk about talk. All this is people talking themselves into confusion about the nature of things. Reality is not necessarily as we perceive it- but it also is. Penness and the Pen are both real, but are also created by subjective creatures, who cannot truly be objective. So the camps will argue forever.
I’m not qualified to have a detailed discussion about the definition of fascism but it seems to me that mainstream liberal elite politicians have been so detached from the public on issues ranging from immigration, multiculturalism, gender bending, wars abroad, the death penalty, government corruption etc that it might be worth empowering an authoritarian leader who promises to clear out those who obstruct the peoples will on these issues. Liberalism has brought our societies to such a crisis in terms of maintaining any national coherence that anything other than further empowering the existing institutions might be worth a risk
Well, sounds like you actually have a sound mind. And i agree. That is precisely the utopia that Germany was headed for, and so the masters squashed it and painted it as evil. In truth though, it's the other way around.
You described cultural marxlsm to a T. All these "intellectuals" here, as hard as they try to make it sound like they understand everything, and how much they despise marxlzm, only succeed in proving their hypocritical ignorance by throwing derogatory comments toward 30s Germany and labelling it in the same vein as marxlsm. While hailing our current society as the "morally superior". It's an echo chamber of incompetence and contradictions.
European culture virtually doesn't exist. National pride and cohesiveness is a relic of the past. Flags mean nothing, borders mean nothing, even languages and culture mean nothing. Our women and young generations have no respect. We serve only to sacrifice our quality of life in order to improve it for those who despise us.
You spent more time thinking about Fascism by watching this video than your average self-proclaimed Fascist has or ever will in his/her entire existence. The aren't Fascist because they are intruiged by the metaphysical concept of pen-ness, they just want to get drunk, belt slogans they don't understand, derive their self-worth from a past that never was and dogpile people slightly different from themselves.
Well, to be fair, the very Scientific Method itself is a product of the same train of philosophical thought that spawned these other beliefs - I believe TIK even mentions that in this video, that the Scientific Method was developed to deal with questions of what is real from the material side of a material/ideal two-sided equation, while all sorts of philosophical weirdness sprang up from the ideal side of the same equation. It's counter-intuitive and weird, perhaps, but perhaps also inevitable, given the nature of philosophy, that something that somehow produced a tool as useful, practical, and valuable as the Scientific Method, can also find a thousand ways to follow its own moments of crazy down the rabbit-holes of idealistic madness to their inevitable conclusions.
Just a tip on quantum mechanics. What the double slit experiment/Schrogdiner's cat proves is that we are unable to KNOW the true, natural unaltered state of a particle, not that the universe is shaped according to an observer. Plus, one must be careful with the word 'observer' here, observer might also mean 'whatever it is interacting with the particle'. Pluuuus? What do you need to watch something? Light, and when you throw 'light' at an particle that you suspect to be in a region of space, you are...INTERACTING WITH IT, thus changing its trajectory or energy level. There is nothing about 'mind changing stuff' or 'universes splitting in half' or 'world being what we think it is'. Those stupid theories only exist because of those insane unscientific bullshit about 'mind shaping reality' oozing in physics.
Referring to Jonah Goldberg's excellent book "Liberal Fascism" time and time again over the decades, now - has NEVER once had me at a disadvantage re: knowledge in this realm. There are subtle and dramatic points therein that the oh so informed...and compassionate...mob miss. [Seemingly - per preference. I.e., they prefer to be ironically and terminally wrong as well as difunctionally aggravated] Could be easily remedied. But we all know at this point this is a matter of behavioral psychology - NOT theory. Not a functional praxis. Not an awareness of history or economics. Not a concretization of ideals. Nothing so linear or coherent informs the masses. Never has, never will. [All this as the rule] Although excellent resources abound - which could easily, and perhaps enjoyably - resolve the seemingly unnecessary difference that acts as such. In other words = "Liberal Fascism" should be a prerequisite for any aspiring know it all that fancies their position superior - out here; in the irony and pitchfork melee.
I don't think that anyone at the top will call you out for attacking fascists and fascism because you attack their "religion". I don't think that a court will ever agree to that. Fascism is not a legal religious organisation, it has no mainstream definition of clerics, it has no divine creed. The mainstream doesn't understand (either truly or willingly) that a secular or atheist political ideology is a form of worship. Even apolitical atheism is a religion, because humanity has always psychologically needed to worship something or at least believe in something it can't fully know or understand. Both on an individual and group level.
Can you do a video comparing the idealism of fascism and communism with gnosticism? People like James Lindsay say that they come from gnostic thought, but your explanation in this video makes it seem like that's not the case.
2:57 there is a particle physics teory that is revolving around this. dont quote me on this, i dont remember the details now, but if i am not mistake this comes from the double-slit experiment, where the conclusion is that the univers is shaped when there is an observer, if there is not the results are completly diferent. i bet some of you saw those videos on yout tube
No, an observer is anything at all that has the effect of collapsing a wave function. Inanimate and insentient objects including subatomic particles bouncing off each other are observers. The universe has been observing itself long before any consciousness arose.
Gentile ignores the fact that the Fascists imposed their "state" on Italy. If you impose your will on others by force and maintain it by force it is not democracy. That is the fallacy of their thinking.
Tik you are confusing psychology and psychoanalysis which is what Freud created. He even realized it was not working at some point but didn't abandon it because it was making him so much money. He presented "model patients" which were actually not cured at all and convinced one of his patient, a rich widow to give things to resolve her constipation problems. She bought him a villa, a villa he sold shortly afterwards. Psychoanalysis doesn't work. Psychology and psychotherapy, when it's not intertwined with psychoanalysis and is done correctly, does work.
Protestant vs roman catholicism - pause post. Enhancing query. Inside proestant view, dispensational theology & Covent theology are the main two hermeneutical lens one can use to study scripture. Hermeneutics defenition - is the science and art of bibcal intereptation. Purpose of hermeneutics is to get to the orignal intention of the aurthor. The authority and inerrancy of Scripture is important. Though one can not use chapter and verses to control The Holy Spirit, He is God. (look up attributes of God). Great video Tik. learning alot about knukle heads. 😉
22:20 "god created the material world as a mirror" then in the Elder Scrolls universe, Anu creates Anui-El for the same reason. That's my contribution to the subject - your welcome :)
If you were blindfolded and taken to a place that you've never been, and while walking about, you run head-on into a wall, does that wall exist? After all, that wall could not have been in your mind already.
Thank you for the insightful video. I hope of a collaboration between you and Metatron - who recently released a video about Fascism too - in the near future.
i'm so annoyed not being taught philosophy back in school we should have. Ayn Rand was right when she said that adults are failing kids by not educating us on how to think. The pillars of philosophy are so important. And I got taught I even had a mandatory RE class religion. nobody liked it as very little in the secular school were even religious also I looked up this is mandatory by law.
Ideally, philosophy should be taught to students by almost ANYONE but an actual philosopher. Fortunately for us, I don't think TIKHistory is a philosopher - his skepticism about all the sacred cows of philosophy is a nice breath of fresh air, and does more to clear up the mass of confusion on the subject than any true believer I've ever heard from!
@@pietrayday9915 Yea I get you well as Ayn pointed out it was happening back in 60's I would even say that's when the culture war started. If you read her essays you can see the origins of woke. Something important to learn today. But even without objectivism, they could teach the fundamentals and Aristotle. At least youtube kids will likely find out. But I would rather every kid knew how to rational think. We deffo need it. Sophists are something to fear especially amoral ones. They don't believe in reality and just use rhetoric for arguments appealing to in modern day they appeal to emotion instead of man's reason. It's so easy to appeal to emotion rather than rationalize the ideas you have. Our society will die too these people. If you live in a democracy you are wide open to these people. Remember it was 30 tyrants the oligarchy that took over democracy in Athens. That had more protections than ours. It's what I think is going on with Starmer. He has no morals and changes what he says every time depending on the crowd.
@@pietrayday9915 democrats too I would say are amoral sophists Harris saying nothing and not caring, she just rambles on about nothing important dodging questions. People need to know in order to combat this. And understand what she is doing.
@@pietrayday9915 I would have thought this was all conspiracy theory but sadly it's the truth. nobles had time for these cults. And all our big names were into this stuff. Isaac newton and others. It's such a jump to what I thought the world was. In modern times It used to confuse me that older people tended to go along with the woke crowd. Well I found out that berkley had the free speech movement. That did the exact same thing as 2016 protests that took over unis and took staff hostage. Guess what demands were the exact same safe space both times for students. These people were taught by those people. Which has led to a generation failure with knock on effect. it was not for free speech the name was to get even conservatives on board. As I say they just use rhetoric and simply don't care about reality.
Great Video, but just a comment. I think you brought in Christianity too early and lumped them in with Solopstists. Christianity is Platonistic, one could say Neoplatonist. They do believe in an objective reality, the power of the mind/faith, and can easily make the argument for holding up reason as valid. Augustine's understanding which became the philosophical basis of most of medieval Christendom and still has a strong influence today was very similar to Platonism. Aquinas did rediscover, but also reinterpreted Aristotle into a Christian lens, and as such he created a strong philosophical basis for reason within Christianity. That's not to say Christianity cannot be Solipsistic at times. The best example of this is in Last Thursdayism which basically negates historical evidence with the argument "God could've created us last Thursday with all evidence and memories of a time before being just planted in us." But even this is not really Solipsistic as it's just an excuse to ignore evidence that contradicts their worldview, not a rejection of reason or reality entirely.
Maybe it falls on his giant shoes and he's completely unharmed, and lives on to tell people it was funny. But that would only be secondhand funny, because you have to take the clown at his word. So no. No, it is not funny.
Deep dive into Gentile's thought never hurts as it helps highlight cases of collectivism that are otherwise hard to spot. Of course Gentile's definition of par excellence democracy has nothing to do with Greek definition of one, primarily because Greek idea of democracy is not Platonic.
I agree with Plato. Everything constantly changes but there's still a subliminal continuity in nature. There are patterns that repeat themselves although at every time the sequence appears with slight differences. But how do we account for this continuity except by Plato's view of multiple worlds or higher realities that do not change.
Maybe since there are the same particles, and they have optimal nodes of interaction, we end up with the same arrangements of matter and similar nodes of interaction. But this just removes the problem. I think it points to an overall intent and will behind the universe.
You need to read Aristotle. "The actual and the potential are, in a sense one ... and nothing is more a cause than what occasions the transition." That is to say, what a thing is, and how it changes, are the same thing just viewed from different perspectives. In modern science, the values of the properties of things are inputs to *differential* equations. Which means more or less the same thing.
This is an awesome episode! If I may, you might take a look at Thomas Reid and the Scottish Realists as they are the ones who along with Locke informed Classic American Liberalism. Now while this doesn't tie directly into Fascism and Nazism it stands as the stark contrast to the Theory of Ideas and skepticism of Descartes, Hume and Kant. Reid spent an inordinate amount of time in back and forth critique of Hume (and Descartes...and even Locke). Reid also relied on our Common Senses but not at the extremes of Hume. You could say he was Rand before Rand and the objectivists.
Maybe you just like parts of it. Just because fascism espouses X, Y and Z does not mean they invented it and copyrighted it. Almost all ideologies share common positions and beliefs. It is the mix that makes each of them what they are.
Who knows? I get the vague impression that the quality of the bricks doesn't matter, and the houses are just a sort of super-brick that is better and more important than tthe individual brick by virtue of representing more brick-ness than an individual brick does.
Hey, so, I have an issue with your source being Leonard Peikoff. The issue is that Peikoff is an Objectivist, and his historiography of philosophy has issues with it mostly because it is derived from Ayn Rand's. I'm not a shitlib, I love reading Ayn Rand and her philosophy, but her thoughts on other philosophers is highly problematic and deranged at points (Her hated for Kant is incomprehensible). This doesn't debunk your main thesis of Fascism btw, but you are getting into the realm of philosophy from history, and things get complicated here.
The updated timeline used in the video is here and in the description too drive.google.com/file/d/1IJkAYcN9w0G9Hy5V6PacYLb4hMlHitCW/view?usp=drive_link
There's a lot more I need to add to it, so expect periodic updates! If you didn't see the original timeline video, it's here ua-cam.com/video/v7_J_daQkSU/v-deo.html
It’s a work of art. Keep it up.
It should be noted that Plato didnt "say" anything. If one were to dig into his letters one may get closer to justifying that claim. [but] He wrote in dialogues. Nothing like "Thus i sayeth". One may wonder why he did that... [Nonetheless]
U get Idealism right. And i love that.
Still: much work yet ahead of thee, [us] friend.
there's No such thing" as nothing" meanwhile -is an excellent song to play in the b/g. Cornell, not Mayer.
[Rocks DO write excellent essays]
Anyhow:
Small critique TIK but I think you should swap Hume and Burke around: Hume wrote his big work "A Treatise of Human Nature" in 1740, Burke wrote his earliest work "A vindication of natural society" in 1756. That, and Hume was born in 1711, Burke was born in 1729.
You should absolutely do a collab with Metatron 😊
So you added the periods and a buch of liberals and conservatives.
Hitler stated in a 1928 interview, "We might have called ourselves the Liberty Party. We chose to call ourselves National Socialists. We are not Internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just demands of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
So racial colectivism
@@kwestionariusz1Sounds familiar, like a certain modern group of people that injects race into absolutely everything.
Still collectivists using Marxist vocabulary.
@@kwestionariusz1 Yes, or as I described it "racial socialism". Of course, the Marxist Socialists and similar were not happy with that, but the truth hurts when your ideology detaches you from reality.
@@kwestionariusz1 Viewing the world with only two concepts is very reductionist not everything is either collectivism vs individualism.
"Everything within the State. Nothing outside the State."
Fascists argued that socialism "doesn't go far enough."
Considering that the total number of DELETIONS by the Italian fascist security forces against its own citizens equal in the few thousands, that's basically a tuesday to Stalin or Mao. I'd say that socialism DID went far enough.
Ant-ness. You own nothing and will be happy.
So communism?
Technically they argued the Italian Socialist Party didn't go far enough.
"Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative." Mussolini
The ancient Hindu religion also believed the world was entirely made of thought. There is an old story about a king who knew a Hindu philosopher who claimed everything in the world was just thoughts in the mind. To test this theory, the king sent an elephant charging straight at the philosopher who, when he saw it coning ran like hell. The king then said to him, " you said everything is just thoughts, and yet I just saw you running away from that elephant." The philosopher replied, " You THOUGHT you saw me running from the elephant."
A bit like the old story of Samuel Johnson and Berkeley lol
Yes this come to us through pythagoras.Idealism is hindu philosophy and use of symbols for magic mainly come from babylon.Pythagoras traveled to babylon and india for knowlegde and came back with this ideas in western world
This sounds like the "perception is reality" trap that leftists fall into. Yes, your individual reality is entirely 'perception'. But that perception is still a cause and affect relationship dictated by the laws of physics. I've met some "really smart people" who couldn't work their way out of this trap. These are the very same people who instantly changed from thinking Im a normal smart guy, to a devil because I 'support' Trump.
This video did a decent job of explaining one of the great errors in philosophy: the tribalistic camps that have arisen around exclusive ideas. For example, we all have a sense of fairness or justice, but we also understand that fairness or justice is also a matter of practical application. The ideal (idea) of justice or fairness exists in us all, but the application of it varies in practice. The attempt to sever the mindscape from the practical has caused many serious problems in philosophy. The truth is that both of these things necessarily exist.
The greatest baggage from the weird philosophical gobbledygook drawing battle-lines around and through these concepts would be that it completely ignores the fact that perfectly reasonable people can look at something like Justice, and say "well, IDEALLY things would be like that, but this is not an ideal world, and in a PRACTICAL world we would have to admit that sometimes, or most of the time, things are actually very different, or even completely the opposite of the ideal, mostly because human nature runs counter to this ideal...."
The usual story of what happens to most lottery winners, for example, highlights the vast gulfs between the ideal world, where a Marxist might believe that giving everyone the same ration of wealth would make everyone equally wealthy, and the practical world, where in fact you could give millions of dollars to the average lottery winner, and in a few years they'll be as poor as they ever were before, and miserable, with a long trail of wreckage behind them, because there's a practical difference between wealth that is obtained easily and wealth that is earned and worked for, and a practical difference between the skills needed to determine what is really valuable and make the most of that value to invest wisely and maintain and build on wealth instead of throw money around on temporary fun and costly status symbols, and a practical difference in the friends that a self-made wealthy person learns how to cultivate and look to for advice and guidance, versus the "friends" who can be counted on to flock to lottery winners looking to mooch on hand-outs, and so on.
A great deal of it comes down to a failure of many of these philosophers to make any use of cynicism to temper their idealism: even well-meaning people are corrupt and foolish, they have their bad days, they aren't often very smart even when (or especially when) they are well-educated, sometimes people are downright evil and can use pleasant-sounding ideals to disguise ulterior motives, or find ways to use nice-sounding ideals to further their own worst natures, and so on. A lot of philosophers who were, no doubt, convinced of the best intentions of their own ideals have found that implementing their ideals in the real world brings out the worst in their followers, and themselves, assuming they have the insight and grasp on the reality of what they are doing to realize it.
And I find that too many of them even refuse to entertain any question of their ideals, under the conviction that practical or cynical concerns over their ideals are direct threats from a dirty material world to the theoretical purity of their idealism: as long as their ideals can float untouched and unquestioned and unsullied in the purity of a theoretical realm, the aims toward those ideals can be carried out in the material world toward a corresponding material perfection against the resistance of evil anti-philosophers, or something..... As if the material world is actually a reflection of their ideal world, where their ideals make reality, as long as there is nobody else there to contradict them, a problem that could ideally be solved by eliminating people who disagree from reality until the only people who remain are those who can preserve the purity of the ideal.... People don't work that way in the real world, not even the philosophers are free from the "errors" that make the ideals impractical and impossible!
The idealists, in other words, do not understand or live in the practical world -and honestly, they don't seem to live in or understand the "material" world, either, being so lost looking at their favorite idealist trees, that they cannot really see very far into their own philosophical forests.....
Looking around us, it seems clear to me that we need fewer idealists, dreamers, and philosophers, and more cynics, pessimists, and practical people. Especially in light of the number of people who have been senselessly butchered in the name of idealistic dreams and impractical philosophies and ideologies over the last hundred years alone!
@@pietrayday9915 Exactly so. This stresses the importance of things like decentralized political power and economic models. The academic idealist is hubristic in his ideals and ideologies, and such arrogance leads to power and economic centralization which encourages abuse, exploitation, and is a wonderful way to spread bad ideas universally. By decentralizing political authority and economic action, we reduce the risk of abuse and fraud, among other undesirable effects.
This is why iam a substantial dualist.Both mind and Matter exsist.The apple is there it exsist but our mind due to past experiences regocnizes certain qualities that are found in a bunch of fruits and therefore call them apples despite them being red,green spherical shape or trapesian.We have pattern regocnition abilities.
Me: *A serious student of both history and philosophy. Constantly trying to learn more about both, and fascinated by how they interact.*
Also me: *Snickering uncontrollably every time TiK says "pen-ness"*
"We all have pen ness in our minds" 🤨🤨🤨
@@queuedjar4578 Some of us have a small pen-ness. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
@@82dorrin
As long as the wife is happy with it.
I have the perfect pen-ness form.
My pen-ness is average-sized.
You left out the part where the UK says, except Christians. Seems to me it's fine to hate on Christians there, since they are arrested for silent prayer.
What are you going on about?
Like (white) men they are exempt because they are perceived by the Left as to have power. Racism, sexism and other isms flow from power. Those who have it against those who haven't to oppress it. Therefore women can't be sexist towards men, because they have no power, people of color cannot be racist because they have no power and other belief system can't be prejudiced against Christianity, because they have no power. As TIK once said, marxist may share your language, but they don't share your dictionary. Their accusations and statements NEVER mean what people think they do.
@@colincampbell4261 There was a woman in Birmingham who was arrested by the police for silently praying outside an abortion clinic. Look it up.
@@emceedoctorb3022 That's bizarre. But not surprising.
He knows nothing about Christianity. He should read some Josephus (a Jew), and about every atheist I have heard are more educated on the topic. I am not implying his only sources should be Christian. He said Christains believe in an objective reality, which is crazy. Idk how I am supposed to even listen to his trash anymore if he's going to twist things. He never has a source for his claims about Christainity either.
Flawless pronunciation of "pen-ness" every time. Well done, sir.
You definitely need to clearly pronounce both Ns.
No minecraft player ever thought that because when you load the chunks in the world they are loaded for everyone on the server, that the players should thus create an all encompassing collective state in that world.
Give them time. Give them time. If Minecraft isn't already a religion or economic or political philosophy that some nut somewhere might think is worth deleting people over, someone will think of a way to turn it into one in a few years, I guarantee it....
Funnily enough multiplayer servers tend to operate with the explicit notion of private property that can not be interfered with by other players.
This will be an excellent series. Looking foward to it
I graduated in Philosophy and Theology, and I look back at it often and just facepalm and think that I did not learn anything of practical value.
That's not to say that knowing philosophical history has no value (it has value like learning history in general), just that I sense that I learned more about people's rambling thoughts than anything useful.
Today, what I respect is the labourer. By that I don't mean in a Communist sense - I simply mean, anyone who produces or creates something. The act of creation influences reality. Building a building, putting up a podcast, writing code, painting art, managing a business - while philosophy and thought go into these things for sure, my essential thought is that the bulwark and foundation of society matters more than wondering what reality "is."
The true philosophers are those who do something.
And those who think they are philosophers only create unliveable Utopia.
Creating thoughts can also be highly valuable, (if they are valuable thoughts). Value is always subjective, at least in the way im defining it. So something more often than not has highly different value to different people. A woodmaker would offer way more for the same wood than a plumber. So your thoughts have different value to different people aswell. Thoughts can often be solutions to problems. And the world is full of problems. You don't need to implement the solution to be of value. Enabling it and giving people the right methods also can bring tremendous value. And that is in one part, basically what a consultant does. He helps solve problems, often only conceptually. But there is a very important point: the illusion of knowledge. Tons of people think they know how to solve something or have their theories, but actually they know jack all. Actual solutions are a completly different thing than theories, and therefore one has to use reality as ones master.
Evil materialist
Rand would disagree. You need philosophy in order to produce, even if you only hold a philosophy implicitly. For example, you need to know if reality exists or how causality works in order to grow crops or hunt animals for food.
@@RyanRothwell
So Ants use philosophy ?
This explains why you won't find the word democracy in the U.S. constitution.
YES. To be fair, though, even the republican/libertarian experiment of the US Constitution was a product of the same revolutionary trail of "liberal" philosophy that produced Fascism, Marxism, and so many of the other "-isms" of the last couple hundred years.
The distinguishing characteristic, I would argue, is in the relative skepticism and cynicism of the American Republic, compared to the utopian ideals of competing philosophies:
The US Constitution is deliberately written as a maze of interlocking and contradictory checks--and-balances, not because its architects thought it would make for a more efficient and elegant form of perfection for a utopian government led by well-meaning philosopher-kings over a wise and benevolent people... rather, it's designed to hamper and hamstring its own government to the greatest extent possible, in the name of preventing the inevitable cast of corrupt scoundrels and monsters that would try to seize control of it from doing as much damage as possible.
The Framers of the Constitution were under none of the illusions that most revolutionaries seem to be bound by, that there is some idealized liberal State on material Earth just waiting for the right idealistic philosophy to be conjured into the sphere of imagination, to lead them towards a utopian world if only they could be freed from the deceptions and limits of some mystical "demiurge" and its Capitalist agents on Earth.
Rather, they worked with the understanding that the Republic they were crafting depended on the wisdom and self-restraint of an educated and moral people to keep it on track, but would persist under a built-in time-limit of the inherent imperfection and corruption and laziness and ignorance of man - "A Republic, IF you can keep it!"
Too many competing philosophies assume some inherent goodness in man, which can be freed to maintain a "perfect" philosophical construct forever and ever, if only they can be freed to do so through the pure benevolence of the State, perhaps once a class, race, or whatever of unbelievers with competing philosophies has successfully been purged from the earth.....
That includes "Our Democracy". One can't help noting with a sinking feeling of dread that "Our Democracy" is assumed to be benevolent and trustworthy to hold absolute power, and cannot withstand the criticism, cynicism, doubt, and pessimism that we could level against the Republic from the day it was founded, up to a few years ago, or even now, while "Our Democracy" races to blot it from American history and replace it with something alien and ominous and un-American.....
The Republic worked as long as we all agreed that it was imperfect and best treated with delicacy and suspicion, and restrained from power. "Our Democracy" cannot withstand any doubt or question - every criticism or restraint on its grasp for total power is a "Threat to Our Democracy", and the only imperfection it will admit is that it has not yet successfully purged itself of all dissent and doubt and "fash" restraint on its power in the name of establishing by force a utopia on Earth unbound by "what has been".... I don't trust any government, but I especially distrust any government that cannot be criticized, or which demands absolute power over me, or which insists on its own pure and infallible benevolence in the name of a Utopia that can be achieved if only enough people either shut up, get in line, and follow orders, or just fall as conveniently as possible into a grave on the "wrong side of history".....
@@pietrayday9915And both Adams and Jefferson knew this! That is both, from opposite ends of their contemporary political spectrum, came to the conclusion that a "New Revolution" would be necessary every 5-7 generations. (Andrew Jackson should have been the first of these, but the moment was "passed on," a bad habit of American politics even [Especially] today)
@@pietrayday9915 "To be fair, though, even the republican/libertarian experiment of the US Constitution was a product of the same revolutionary trail of "liberal" philosophy that produced Fascism, Marxism, and so many of the other "-isms" of the last couple hundred years." The US as conceived and in its first 30 years of existence was the closest humanity has come to the true sovereignty of the individual. We've lost that, particularly as a result of the Civil War, but for a brief time it was there. Now the US is basically just a federal republic where sovereignty is reserved to the top of the pyramid and occasionally licensed out to favored groups and classes.
Just been on Metatrons channel and had to vent in the chat when idiots start on about TIK being a Yasi sympathiser and apologist. Damn TIK you must be hitting home with some of these fools when they have to blatantly lie about your brilliant content! Keep up the good work mate.
Ah yes the Metatron and Tik gang. Avengers assem...
This is not easy , but very interesting !
Yes, for people who are not immersed in philosophy, it can be very difficult, which is why I spoke slowly and went through it the way I did in the hopes that people would be able to grasp it. Of course, someone has criticsed me saying "you could have said it all in 10 minutes", but my goal is to reach the widest audience as possible, so I had to spend the time to make sure it was all clear.
@@TheImperatorKnight I have long thought that you can teach/explain almost anything as long as you start with a common understanding. Your approach was perfect in this regard.
@@TheImperatorKnight So what am i then Tik? - i dont vote and i dont believe in democracy per say .....because for over all my lifetime i can see fascism at work within our representational democracy/judicial systems, parliament etc in the uk.
All im interested in is making sure that our governments , from one government to another , are to be examined with a fine tooth comb under fact and law .....and to made equal under the law with everyday citizens i.e access to one law , one rule , and a shit load of us to make sure that stays universal and equal...no matter if that can create inequality along the way. Law education in schools etc
what does that make me?
@@rockface901 Do you require a label?
@@TheImperatorKnight I for one appreciate that considering I am one of those people who frankly hasn't invested much time in philosophy. So thank you.
Socialism is a religion
unlike the trickle down economics of capitalism course.
@AFGuidesHD trickle-down economics is when the government takes your money and redistributes (trickles it down) it to the lower classes.
Yeah, there's no such thing as "trickle down economics" ua-cam.com/video/nZPDpk8NA-g/v-deo.htmlsi=KNG44PJUyZ-HmN--
All political ideologies are basically Christian heresies, really.
@@TheImperatorKnight Yes!!! Thank you.
There’s a lot of hard work behind this explanation. Probably, one of the most clear presentation of what “Fascism” was, in its own Philosophical structure. All explained in a very easy way. Moreover, the difference with Nazism, the consequent “fusion” in Nazifascim. Nice Job TikH!
29:44 Small correction (kinda). "Looking" can mislead the viewer. Looking at something like a subatomic particle isn't like looking at a screen. You need to use incredibly powerful technology which will interact with the particle. The change in behaviour comes from the interaction between the instruments and the particle.
@Bean-boi I'm afraid you are mistaken. Firstly, the human eye can perceive a single photon so you can in fact sense a solitary quantum event. Yes, to generate some kinds of sub-atomic particles you do need massively powerful particle accelerators like the LHC for creating a Higgs boson, but many other quantum phenomena don't require that at all. Early quantum experiments involved hiring mostly young women to sit in absolute darkness watching scintillation screens for flashes of light from single particles striking the phosphorous. By the way, it is absolutely the case that quantum mechanics cannot describe the process of a measurement and in fact there is not a complete theory that encapsulates the statistics of quantum mechanics and a precise mathematical description of a measurement. Scarily enough measurement in quantum mechanical theory flirts dangerously with idealism in that it is the "observer" who collapses the wave function. Schroedinger's cat is actually a critique of this problem.
@@andrewdelaix You'd kidding right? Are you seriously saying that being in the vicinity of an electron being fired is the equivalent of observing it? That's just not what observation is.
@@Bean-boi An electron interacts with its environment very often, as it interacts with all the electromagnetic fields around it. And gravity as well. Photons do neither of that, so it is easy to observe strange quantum effects with them.
In physics, an observation is a measurement of any kind, and is not possible without interaction.
@@Bean-boi An electron hitting a phosphorescent screen generating some photons a few of which hit your eye: all quantum until it hits your eye. I'm saying that the vagaries of quantum mechanics leak right up into your physical senses and that you are in fact a quantum detector.
@@andrewdelaix Yes... we can see...
Imma have to watch this a dozen times to make it stick.
It's not an easy one, but I hope I've explained it well
@@TheImperatorKnight You did, but I'm old and plagued with mental health issues aplenty. I'm bad with remembering details like these, so it needs repetition.
@@TheImperatorKnight yes, you did, he's just flaunting the fact he is five times cleverer than me - ahh well, on to watch number seventy...
If you are new or just not an expert of philosophy then the book The Quest for a Moral Compass by Kenan Malik is excellent, really helps to frame everything, well, lots...
This is really interesting!! You did a great job explaining all this!
"I think, therefore I am" - Descartes
"I am, therefore I think" J.P, Sartre, Stephen Hawking
"I am, therefore I am" - Popeye, Stone Cold Steve Austin
"I think, therefore I think" - Hegel - (Pure thought thinking about pure thought - characterization by Bertrand Russell)
Bishop Berkeley might have changed his mind if Samuel Johnson had connected with a right hook to his nose instead of merely kicking a rock .....
2024 you can be replaced ai
@@BuleriaChk Have you read Rothbards essay titled The Hermeneutical Invasion?
"At first, I thought that these German hermeneuticians were simply ill-served by their translators into English. But my German friends assure me that Heidegger, Gadamer, et al. are equally unintelligible in the original. Indeed, in a recently translated essay, Eric Voegelin, a philosopher not normally given to scintillating wit, was moved to ridicule Heidegger’s language. Referring to Heidegger’s master work, Sein und Zeit (Being and Time), Voegelin refers to the meaningless but insistent repetition of a veritable philosophical dictionary of phrases as the Anwesen des Answesenden (”the presence of that which is present”), the Dingen des Dings (”the thinging of the thing”), the Nichten des Nichts (”the nothinging of the nothing”), and finally to the zeigenden Zeichen des Zeigzeugs (”the Pointing sign of the pointing implement”), all of which is designed, says Voegelin, to whip up the reader “into a reality-withdrawing state of linguistic delirium.”3" Murray N Rothbard
Thanks, great video TIK.
idealism is a major issue. I think it's leading to Amoral sophists in the modern day. I see so many similarities. They say that it's all relative, and social constructs.
I have been thinking for a long while that fascism is strongly democratic and the logical conclusion of certain types of demacracy. I guess this will further my reasons to think so. Thanks as always TIK
Fascism = Real Democracy = Freedom.
So if the majority can take my stuff I'm free ? Direct Taxation = Freedom ?
Yeah. As soon as it's accepted that what a majority or plurality of people think somehow determines right and wrong, you're pretty much doomed to land in the realm of fascism. And manufactured consent is left completely unaccounted for.
@@SepticFuddy I mean, democracy can come in more ways than a majority of people who impose things to others, not only it can come from a minority too but its usually the politician in question who is actually the one in control. People cant see these traits are inherent in one way or another in both democracy and fascism, they swallowed the propaganda that lies clearly about democracy, dont really know what fascism is about and dont see the same traits between the 2. They actually suport both without really knowing. People cant conceive democracy as someone that isnt good (as if the way that something is chosen or imposed said if it is good or bad) therefore these things happen and deny certain things to be democratic
As a student of history i came here for the very detailed and well researched battle reports. As a student of the human condition im staying for the deep dive into philosophy and meta physics. Well done Sir Knight
Thank you for these educational videos
Being treated like a grown-up who can deal with complex and sensitive topics feels good. Thanks mate.
Thanks for the work you put into these TIK.
Awesome as always
“Facism is just about have a fun time with your bros” musselini 2019
Thank you for a very interesting video.
I think what Gentile meant by the world being created by the mind was that it is human action based on ideas, rather than material conditions controlling everything as in Marxism, which dictates its ultimate course in a societal sense.
That's fundamentally a platonic idea.
Even if that is so, as is almost always the case, what a philosopher MEANT is perhaps far less important than what his most active and fanatical followers HEARD, or imagined, or wanted to believe....
ua-cam.com/video/NFPIGNua5WM/v-deo.html
Great work, TIK. Well done. Thank you.
"Let's criminalize a rival political party to protect democracy!!"
Do they not see the problem here?
If a party is against the Constitution then of course it must be criminalised
They do, but they don't care because their agenda is more important in their eyes. It's for the "greater good".
@@angadsingh9314 Why? It takes a lot of effort to change a constitution. Usually a 2/3rds or 3/4 majority. No party EVER gets such a supermajority. As long as they adhere to the basic rules of political parties why should any party be criminalized for having an abhorrent opinion? You don't have democracy or freedom of speech if new parties that threaten the established ones can be 'verboten' on a technicality. Also, by that logic the US Democrats should be forbidden, as quite a few Democrats, like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have said things that are hostile to the constitution. The 1st and 2nd amendments in particular.
@angadsingh9314 So, all the authors of the Anti-Federalist Papers should have been rounded up?
There's a long distance between saying that the Constitution was poorly written, and taking up arms.
@@jeffreyscott4997 No... because they're just essays, they're just words. An anti-democratic political party on the other hand is more than just words
Well, Plato must have had an amazing "Magic Mushroom" garden.
The explaintion of the platonic forms here is extremely shallow. If it does interest you, I'd definitely do some research outside of these videos if it interests you.
Clown rights are human rights! Stop clownism now!😀
He did. Know who else did? The Apostles.
And a great Pen-ness
@@LlibertarianGalt Absolutely.
So since neither of them did, they both did in the same way. The negative way. Brilliant logic man. Bravo.
Hey TIK, I wonder what you think of HistoryLegends? His coverage on the Russo-Ukrainian war is superb despite misinformation and disinformation from both sides, his simple mapping editing is very accurate enough for Russian soldiers unironically recording themselves watching his videos and Ukrainian soldiers are glad that he isn't spouting a dangerous amount of optimism (yes, the mainstream media is still insisting the war is in Ukraine's favor). His military knowledge is adequate for the coverage (like Deep Battle Doctrine and pre-Napoleonic battles). Of course, covering from both sides' perspective has gained a lot of flak from what you can consider as the Wheraboos of NATO (NAFO) and is often smeared as Russian propaganda despite having done videos covering Ukraine's strengths and perspective and has repeatedly revised history as the military situation changes.
Why are we bringing politics into this? The easiest way to divide people is to talk about the modern politics...
Personally prefer Military & History when it comes to covering the Russo-Ukraine war. HistoryLegends is more bias than you may think criminally so sometimes. He's no pro russian mil blogger but sometimes I question his authenticity. I used to watch him but.. he ended up being overly sensational and I can not stomach his videos similar to say The Enforcer.
@@Alte.Kameraden HistoryLegends is biased towards the Ukrainians, but he is also objective enough to not overtly cloud his videos. And when the Russians win he will tell so in his style. But he most definitely wants the Ukraine to win. Overall there are lots of youtubers talking about the Ukraine war. And I reckon the more of them you follow the better informed you will be. Certainly a lot better then what you get from the media. It's bizarre how much open source close to real time information can be had about this war. Imagine having that in WW2, with Rommel's social media channel duking it out with Monty's social media channel with endless videos on who got to hammer the other the most.
@@Alte.Kameraden I think the sensationalism is par on the course of the algorithm, and more so of his style of presentation.
@@korana6308 if you think TIK videos are not about modern politics, then you are not paying attention
WOW! Great vid, cant wait for more.
Fascinating, genuinely. Thank you. I look forward to more.
This is where [Ka*]nt got it wrong. The whole Phenom/Nominal world. It makes enormous leaps of faith which aren't supported. ..I'm so glad you get into this because it really is at the heart of much of WW2. They had been a long time coming, and suddenly the damn burst. It's hubris among "The Land of Poets and Philosophers." (*You know how I spell it.)
2:04 Would ever do one about how Fascism roots sprung up on French Socialists? The book, Neither Right Nor Left, goes into that.
A James Gregor talks about it and so does Giovanni Gentile.
That would be interesting.
@@LlibertarianGalt
Right, but the book goes in depth and shows chronological order in how it happened. Sargon did a book review of it.
@@Web720 Yes, A James Gregor translated the bulk of Giovanni Gentiles works into English and is worth looking into.
We reaching the noumenal realm with this one
Good video.
Its interesting how Italy and Japan got lumped together with Germany despite them being ideologically quite different.
"The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated. Let the open enemy to it be regarded as a Pandora with her box opened and the disguised one as the Serpent creeping with his deadly wiles into Paradise."
James Madison 1834
There is a great video on the flawed political spectrum that everyone thinks of with left and right. Its called Government who needs it by Greg Salmieri and Onkar Ghate
My lord, first Metatron releases a video on Fascism like a day or two ago and now TIK. I'm a happy person now.
Nice lalafell
@@endo4137 Fun to roleplay as the Lalafell version of a Social Revolutionary.
"I fight for the glorious Lalafellian Revolution against the Tall Oppressors. Too long has the Talls thrived off Lalafellian Labor, eating our crops greater than their share. Meanwhile our Lalafellian Farmers and Miners toil in hardship. No more! We shall strike down the talls and take our rightful place at the top of society as the rightful ruling class over all of Eorzea."
Can literally picture a Bun giving a head pat shortly after making me go "Quit it! Take me seriously!" lol
Always a joy to get out brains and preconceptions bent and reduced to the fundaments by this brilliant thinker.
And it's free.
Thank you sir, always a pleasure to listen and learn.
The dialogue between metatron and this channel has been really interesting
Did Metatron mention TIK's content in his videos?
The United Kingdom doesn’t have any set laws, it works on common law - precedent. (What ever a judge feels like, at that particular moment, usually depending on who he is dealing with). ..................... Cue comments based on my profile picture, rather than the intellectual debate.
Christianity is considered objective in the sense that we believe in a reality that exists independently of human thoughts or perceptions. According to Christian teachings, God created a real, physical world, and moral truths are grounded in God's nature, making them universally valid and unchanging, regardless of personal beliefs or cultural differences. This belief in a fixed, external reality and absolute moral truth makes Christianity fundamentally objective.
Christianity doesn't fit with the idea that reality is just a mental or spiritual construct.
I don't understand why TIK says Christians believe in subjective reality and idealism. It seems like he's mixing up Christianity and Gnosticism, which are not the same.
One point of confusion is that there are several different forms of Christianity. Firstly, there are those in the Augustine/Aquinas tradition, which believes in an objective physical world which we can understand beginning with our senses, but with reason and representation building on (and corrected by) what we perceive. Dominician Roman Catholics are probably the most faithful to this tradition, but many (orthodox) Protestants (excluding those which don't tend to focus on philosophy) would also belong to it; while Eastern Orthodox tend to be more neo-Platonists (I do think that one weakness of this video is that it mischarterises the neo-Platonists, who were not the forerunners of idealism to the extent that is implied). The Dominician tradition is probably closer to TIK's own objectivism than most of the rest of the chart (although obviously still differs from it in important respects, such as being theistic rather than atheistic). But on the other hand, you have liberal Protestants and liberal "Catholics" who are very much influenced by Hegel and the traditions that followed from Hegel (and are closer to gnosticism than Christianity). Hegel certainly thought he was rescuing God and what he could of Christianity from the materialists, who he could see were heading towards atheism. But he did it in a way that completely contradicts and undermines apostolic Christianity. Nonetheless, many did follow his lead (or at least were influenced by him to a greater or lesser extent) and still call themselves Christian. This might be the source of TIK's (and Peikoff's) confusion.
I also think the video mischaracterises Hume, and the position he attributes to Hume is closer to that of Hobbes. Hume believed that sense impressions form ideas in our minds, which are distinct from the real objects, and any thinking we do (such as attributing certain things as causes and others as effect) is thinking about those ideas, and thus has nothing to do with the real world. Thus talk about cause, effect, secondary qualities, morality, etc. are all fictions, because (according to Hume) they only exist in our minds. The only reliable things are the directly perceived ideas, and abstract proofs in geometry (which are disconnected from the real world). Kant was greatly impressed by Newton's physics, but then also read Hume, and then realised that Hume's thought completely undermined Newton's theories (which would reside in the world of ideas in Hume's thought). So he pulled the trick of saying that they might only exist in the mind, but that doesn't make them any less real than things in the physical world. Thus Newton's laws, God, and so on, could reside in the world of our ideas and have just as much claim to existence as anything in the phenomenological world. This is entirely the wrong answer to the problem, and obviously after Kant things only got worse. Hume is certainly in the empiricist tradition, but he did not deny the human mind or the existence of ideas in the mind as forming our awareness of reality and, as such lies a step between the Materialist Empiricist tradition and Kant.
I would also dispute that modern science is Empiricist. It is Empirical, which states that we can make a partial representation of reality, and our thoughts on that representation and theories built on it do tell us something (or a great deal) about reality, but with all of this reasoning carefully constrained and then tested by observation and experiment. The empiricists have observation and experiment, but forbid us from constructing theoretical representations and models on top of this; it denies the usefulness of theoretical science (or certainly do so once we get to Hume).
I still think that Ockham and Rosseau ought to be mentioned in any discussion of the origins of the various forms of socialism. Ockham was the father of nominalism (the denial of formal and final causes), and represents the break from the logical and realist (in the sense of accepting universals, albeit in Aristotle's conception subsisting in particular beings rather than some third realm) tradition of Aquinas and the very top of TIK's chart and the modern forms of empiricism and idealism. And the influence of Rosseau, with his belief in fundamental human goodness marred only by individualism, and of a social contract derived from the general will of society, on the development of socialism should be obvious.
Well spotted and articulated observation.
Did you mention Nietzsche? Anyway good job! Empiricism vs. Rationalism. Very good.
I think you're doing really important work showing these ideas outside a classroom and making them available. Personally, I think the philosophy of empiracism vs idealism is all very much mistaken. It should be obvious to anyone that both are limited in scope in a way that makes the argument silly. The pen, is a pen because humans created a pen. Penness is the quality of being a pen, which we created to instruct others on what a pen should be. Along the way to Platonism a mistake was made- God does not decide the forms we see and understand. Along the way to Empiracism, a mistake was made- there is a collective understanding of the forms. The problem with either side is that neither of these are made by God, but entirely by men. When I speak "Pen" to you, you imagine "pEn", but we can agree on the nature of it and create "peN", "PEn" or perhaps "PENn". Because all of this is just a lot of talk about talk. All this is people talking themselves into confusion about the nature of things. Reality is not necessarily as we perceive it- but it also is. Penness and the Pen are both real, but are also created by subjective creatures, who cannot truly be objective. So the camps will argue forever.
I’m not qualified to have a detailed discussion about the definition of fascism but it seems to me that mainstream liberal elite politicians have been so detached from the public on issues ranging from immigration, multiculturalism, gender bending, wars abroad, the death penalty, government corruption etc that it might be worth empowering an authoritarian leader who promises to clear out those who obstruct the peoples will on these issues. Liberalism has brought our societies to such a crisis in terms of maintaining any national coherence that anything other than further empowering the existing institutions might be worth a risk
Well, sounds like you actually have a sound mind. And i agree. That is precisely the utopia that Germany was headed for, and so the masters squashed it and painted it as evil. In truth though, it's the other way around.
You described cultural marxlsm to a T. All these "intellectuals" here, as hard as they try to make it sound like they understand everything, and how much they despise marxlzm, only succeed in proving their hypocritical ignorance by throwing derogatory comments toward 30s Germany and labelling it in the same vein as marxlsm. While hailing our current society as the "morally superior". It's an echo chamber of incompetence and contradictions.
European culture virtually doesn't exist. National pride and cohesiveness is a relic of the past. Flags mean nothing, borders mean nothing, even languages and culture mean nothing. Our women and young generations have no respect. We serve only to sacrifice our quality of life in order to improve it for those who despise us.
In the face of the scientific method how these beliefs persist is amazin
You spent more time thinking about Fascism by watching this video than your average self-proclaimed Fascist has or ever will in his/her entire existence. The aren't Fascist because they are intruiged by the metaphysical concept of pen-ness, they just want to get drunk, belt slogans they don't understand, derive their self-worth from a past that never was and dogpile people slightly different from themselves.
Well, to be fair, the very Scientific Method itself is a product of the same train of philosophical thought that spawned these other beliefs - I believe TIK even mentions that in this video, that the Scientific Method was developed to deal with questions of what is real from the material side of a material/ideal two-sided equation, while all sorts of philosophical weirdness sprang up from the ideal side of the same equation.
It's counter-intuitive and weird, perhaps, but perhaps also inevitable, given the nature of philosophy, that something that somehow produced a tool as useful, practical, and valuable as the Scientific Method, can also find a thousand ways to follow its own moments of crazy down the rabbit-holes of idealistic madness to their inevitable conclusions.
Aristotle tried to warn us
Another fascinating video, Tik!
Thank you TIK!
Thank you so much for this brilliant lecture! I learned so much!
This one was amazing 👏
Great video. I have a few disagreements, but overall, this is a legitimate interpretation of the facts. Could you go more into depth with Franco?
Just a tip on quantum mechanics.
What the double slit experiment/Schrogdiner's cat proves is that we are unable to KNOW the true, natural unaltered state of a particle, not that the universe is shaped according to an observer.
Plus, one must be careful with the word 'observer' here, observer might also mean 'whatever it is interacting with the particle'.
Pluuuus? What do you need to watch something? Light, and when you throw 'light' at an particle that you suspect to be in a region of space, you are...INTERACTING WITH IT, thus changing its trajectory or energy level. There is nothing about 'mind changing stuff' or 'universes splitting in half' or 'world being what we think it is'.
Those stupid theories only exist because of those insane unscientific bullshit about 'mind shaping reality' oozing in physics.
It took young me a long time to figure this out, simply because our science communicators are all garbage.
@@tbk2010 They don't know what they are talking about and some are just dishonest.
I love this kind of videos!
The concept of political ideologies like Fascism, National-Socialism or Socialism being "religions" is very interesting.
Thanks for the good work Tik.
That was one great eye opening video! I might need to get that book and read it myself.
Referring to Jonah Goldberg's excellent book "Liberal Fascism" time and time again over the decades, now - has NEVER once had me at a disadvantage re: knowledge in this realm.
There are subtle and dramatic points therein that the oh so informed...and compassionate...mob miss. [Seemingly - per preference. I.e., they prefer to be ironically and terminally wrong as well as difunctionally aggravated]
Could be easily remedied. But we all know at this point this is a matter of behavioral psychology - NOT theory. Not a functional praxis. Not an awareness of history or economics. Not a concretization of ideals. Nothing so linear or coherent informs the masses. Never has, never will. [All this as the rule]
Although excellent resources abound - which could easily, and perhaps enjoyably - resolve the seemingly unnecessary difference that acts as such.
In other words = "Liberal Fascism" should be a prerequisite for any aspiring know it all that fancies their position superior - out here; in the irony and pitchfork melee.
I don't think that anyone at the top will call you out for attacking fascists and fascism because you attack their "religion". I don't think that a court will ever agree to that. Fascism is not a legal religious organisation, it has no mainstream definition of clerics, it has no divine creed. The mainstream doesn't understand (either truly or willingly) that a secular or atheist political ideology is a form of worship. Even apolitical atheism is a religion, because humanity has always psychologically needed to worship something or at least believe in something it can't fully know or understand. Both on an individual and group level.
6:10 "nothing ever happens"
"And our proof is that we see things happen."
Can you do a video comparing the idealism of fascism and communism with gnosticism? People like James Lindsay say that they come from gnostic thought, but your explanation in this video makes it seem like that's not the case.
Lindsay is talking out of his ass. You'd be better situated looking for the roots of Communism in Cynicism than Gnosticism.
Very well stated.
An excellent video, as always
2:57 there is a particle physics teory that is revolving around this. dont quote me on this, i dont remember the details now, but if i am not mistake this comes from the double-slit experiment, where the conclusion is that the univers is shaped when there is an observer, if there is not the results are completly diferent. i bet some of you saw those videos on yout tube
No, an observer is anything at all that has the effect of collapsing a wave function. Inanimate and insentient objects including subatomic particles bouncing off each other are observers. The universe has been observing itself long before any consciousness arose.
I refuse to believe this is a coincidence, right after Metatron releases a video about fascism and several people in the comments were mentioning Tik.
First of all, you should do that in the first place. Having a solid foundation in reality is the most important thing when understanding Ideologies.
@TIK read 'Fascism: The Career of a Concept' (2015) by Paul Gottfried.
If there is no objective reality, then blind people reading with their fingers are really not reading at all, they just spew whatever comes to mind.
Gentile ignores the fact that the Fascists imposed their "state" on Italy. If you impose your will on others by force and maintain it by force it is not democracy. That is the fallacy of their thinking.
Are you arguing that democracy is not imposed? Does that mean we can live outside democracy without following its policies?
And what happens when a law is voted in with barely enough support to pass? Is that not then imposed on its opponents by force?
I don't think most of them think mountains literally rise and fall with our thoughts.
If its a religion then its protected by the first amendment. And this would be religious discrimination
The Universal Pennes explanation of Plato’s Idea shifted into the concept of Dimensions and Parallel Universe… Multiverse and Multipenne
I love this channel!
Tik you are confusing psychology and psychoanalysis which is what Freud created. He even realized it was not working at some point but didn't abandon it because it was making him so much money. He presented "model patients" which were actually not cured at all and convinced one of his patient, a rich widow to give things to resolve her constipation problems. She bought him a villa, a villa he sold shortly afterwards.
Psychoanalysis doesn't work. Psychology and psychotherapy, when it's not intertwined with psychoanalysis and is done correctly, does work.
Protestant vs roman catholicism - pause post. Enhancing query.
Inside proestant view, dispensational theology & Covent theology are the main two hermeneutical lens one can use to study scripture. Hermeneutics defenition - is the science and art of bibcal intereptation. Purpose of hermeneutics is to get to the orignal intention of the aurthor. The authority and inerrancy of Scripture is important. Though one can not use chapter and verses to control The Holy Spirit, He is God. (look up attributes of God). Great video Tik. learning alot about knukle heads. 😉
22:20 "god created the material world as a mirror" then in the Elder Scrolls universe, Anu creates Anui-El for the same reason. That's my contribution to the subject - your welcome :)
If you were blindfolded and taken to a place that you've never been, and while walking about, you run head-on into a wall, does that wall exist? After all, that wall could not have been in your mind already.
What makes me feel the wall? .... oh, the nerves in my skin.... and where are those nerves connected to? ....?
Thank you for the insightful video.
I hope of a collaboration between you and Metatron - who recently released a video about Fascism too - in the near future.
I’ve always suspected myself to be Schroeder’s cat. But there’s no mirror in this box, so I still can’t be certain.
Yes, I know who Schroeder is. Or was, till Charlie Brown passed on.
i'm so annoyed not being taught philosophy back in school we should have. Ayn Rand was right when she said that adults are failing kids by not educating us on how to think. The pillars of philosophy are so important. And I got taught I even had a mandatory RE class religion. nobody liked it as very little in the secular school were even religious also I looked up this is mandatory by law.
Ideally, philosophy should be taught to students by almost ANYONE but an actual philosopher. Fortunately for us, I don't think TIKHistory is a philosopher - his skepticism about all the sacred cows of philosophy is a nice breath of fresh air, and does more to clear up the mass of confusion on the subject than any true believer I've ever heard from!
@@pietrayday9915 Yea I get you well as Ayn pointed out it was happening back in 60's I would even say that's when the culture war started. If you read her essays you can see the origins of woke. Something important to learn today. But even without objectivism, they could teach the fundamentals and Aristotle. At least youtube kids will likely find out. But I would rather every kid knew how to rational think. We deffo need it. Sophists are something to fear especially amoral ones. They don't believe in reality and just use rhetoric for arguments appealing to in modern day they appeal to emotion instead of man's reason. It's so easy to appeal to emotion rather than rationalize the ideas you have. Our society will die too these people. If you live in a democracy you are wide open to these people. Remember it was 30 tyrants the oligarchy that took over democracy in Athens. That had more protections than ours. It's what I think is going on with Starmer. He has no morals and changes what he says every time depending on the crowd.
@@pietrayday9915 democrats too I would say are amoral sophists Harris saying nothing and not caring, she just rambles on about nothing important dodging questions. People need to know in order to combat this. And understand what she is doing.
There is no such thing as a "secular" school. All men are religious.
@@pietrayday9915 I would have thought this was all conspiracy theory but sadly it's the truth. nobles had time for these cults. And all our big names were into this stuff. Isaac newton and others. It's such a jump to what I thought the world was. In modern times It used to confuse me that older people tended to go along with the woke crowd. Well I found out that berkley had the free speech movement. That did the exact same thing as 2016 protests that took over unis and took staff hostage. Guess what demands were the exact same safe space both times for students. These people were taught by those people. Which has led to a generation failure with knock on effect. it was not for free speech the name was to get even conservatives on board. As I say they just use rhetoric and simply don't care about reality.
Great Video, but just a comment.
I think you brought in Christianity too early and lumped them in with Solopstists. Christianity is Platonistic, one could say Neoplatonist. They do believe in an objective reality, the power of the mind/faith, and can easily make the argument for holding up reason as valid. Augustine's understanding which became the philosophical basis of most of medieval Christendom and still has a strong influence today was very similar to Platonism. Aquinas did rediscover, but also reinterpreted Aristotle into a Christian lens, and as such he created a strong philosophical basis for reason within Christianity.
That's not to say Christianity cannot be Solipsistic at times. The best example of this is in Last Thursdayism which basically negates historical evidence with the argument "God could've created us last Thursday with all evidence and memories of a time before being just planted in us." But even this is not really Solipsistic as it's just an excuse to ignore evidence that contradicts their worldview, not a rejection of reason or reality entirely.
Well, I just started to know that I do believe in Plato's dual reality.
My favourite kind of videos
I think Tik may be getting shadow banned. His views have been dropping like flies.
If a tree falls on a clown and nobody sees it, is it still funny ?
But there's no such thing as humor.🥴
Maybe it falls on his giant shoes and he's completely unharmed, and lives on to tell people it was funny. But that would only be secondhand funny, because you have to take the clown at his word. So no. No, it is not funny.
I'm sorry that a tree fell on you
Deep dive into Gentile's thought never hurts as it helps highlight cases of collectivism that are otherwise hard to spot. Of course Gentile's definition of par excellence democracy has nothing to do with Greek definition of one, primarily because Greek idea of democracy is not Platonic.
God, philosophers are a weird bunch. It feels like they should be best left in a pub and never be listened too ever again.
I agree with Plato. Everything constantly changes but there's still a subliminal continuity in nature. There are patterns that repeat themselves although at every time the sequence appears with slight differences. But how do we account for this continuity except by Plato's view of multiple worlds or higher realities that do not change.
Maybe since there are the same particles, and they have optimal nodes of interaction, we end up with the same arrangements of matter and similar nodes of interaction.
But this just removes the problem. I think it points to an overall intent and will behind the universe.
You need to read Aristotle. "The actual and the potential are, in a sense one ... and nothing is more a cause than what occasions the transition." That is to say, what a thing is, and how it changes, are the same thing just viewed from different perspectives.
In modern science, the values of the properties of things are inputs to *differential* equations. Which means more or less the same thing.
@@jeffreyscott4997 appealing to "modern science" is ill founded. Read "the myth of disenchantment" by Jason Storm.
Fantastic vid. A headsrachter but that's why I'm here.
My ideology is pragmatism, altho i like some quotes from Giovanni Gentile.
you are awesome. please inform us
This is an awesome episode!
If I may, you might take a look at Thomas Reid and the Scottish Realists as they are the ones who along with Locke informed Classic American Liberalism. Now while this doesn't tie directly into Fascism and Nazism it stands as the stark contrast to the Theory of Ideas and skepticism of Descartes, Hume and Kant. Reid spent an inordinate amount of time in back and forth critique of Hume (and Descartes...and even Locke). Reid also relied on our Common Senses but not at the extremes of Hume. You could say he was Rand before Rand and the objectivists.
TIK your last video about fascism has stuck in my head for weeks.
You made it sound WAY too appealing 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂.
Then you need to read basic economics by thomas sowell.
@@bassamalfayeed1384 I'm not saying I'm a fascist, what I'm saying is that he presented it in a very human and intellectual light.
@@AYTM1200Just remember, at some point, everybody runs afoul of fascism.
Maybe you just like parts of it. Just because fascism espouses X, Y and Z does not mean they invented it and copyrighted it. Almost all ideologies share common positions and beliefs. It is the mix that makes each of them what they are.
Maybe because Fascism isn't as bad as you think..m
If the existence of the house is contingent on the bricks, wouldn't the bricks, therefore, be superior, regardless of quantity?
Who knows? I get the vague impression that the quality of the bricks doesn't matter, and the houses are just a sort of super-brick that is better and more important than tthe individual brick by virtue of representing more brick-ness than an individual brick does.
Hey, so, I have an issue with your source being Leonard Peikoff.
The issue is that Peikoff is an Objectivist, and his historiography of philosophy has issues with it mostly because it is derived from Ayn Rand's. I'm not a shitlib, I love reading Ayn Rand and her philosophy, but her thoughts on other philosophers is highly problematic and deranged at points (Her hated for Kant is incomprehensible).
This doesn't debunk your main thesis of Fascism btw, but you are getting into the realm of philosophy from history, and things get complicated here.
That's fair enough, but what specifically did Peikoff get wrong in his series?
Rand's distaste for Kant is anything but incomprehensible, if you understand Objectivism.
if it's any consolation it isn't a heterodox view, much of what I heard in the Peikoff lecture series was supported by the Arthur Holmes series
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 I had not heard of that series, thanks for pointing it out!
@@IBuildItHome I remember I had a deep respect for Kant until I found Objectivism.
Best explanation of facism ever heard
Isn't their the story of the philosopher claiming nothing exist so Rabbi punched him in the nose and asks " what hurts" 😊