4 hours might seem long, but once you’ve listened to it you’ll realize it’s actually an incredibly distilled and condensed masterclass. Thank you James.
I think it was Schopenhauer, who suspected that Hegel (ab)used his endless winding Style to hide the emptiness of his thoughts. So James does a great job here.
--- Me - "to completely understand the woke/Marxist(s) agenda, how it operates and its metaphysical basis. Which are shown to be horrid and baseless respectively.
@@comentedonakeyboard Schopenhauer and Hegel had massive beef. They both lectured at the same university... during Schopenhauer's induction (they would test new professors by making them conduct a mock lecture to the entire faculty, then the profressors would pose as students asking questions... trial by fire). During this induction/test, Hegel asked Schopenhauer an extremely stupid medical question (I think it was medical, don't quote me on this). The question was based on an extremely flawed premise which could be easily pointed out by a teenager. Schopenhauer debunked Hegel's presumption quite easily, the medical professor agreed with Schopenhauer and so Schopenhauer passed the test... (again this detail escapes me, so don't quote me on it.. but its the general jist) This was the beginning of a long running beef, because 1. Hegel tried to stump Schopenhauer with an embarrasingly stupid question. And 2. the fact that his question was so stupid indicated to Schopenhauer that Hegel was poorly trained in the stem fields. This meant Schopenhauer disliked Hegel both for being disprespected by him, and his lack of knowledge in the sciences... Schopenhauer was a very traditionalist philosopher, and there was a time where extensive knowledge in the sciences was considered a pre-requisite for being a good philosopher... so in short, Schopenhauer did not respect Hegel as a philosopher. Again, I forget the exact details so don't quote me... But I believe Schopenhauer purposely conducted classes in the same time slots as Hegel (not sure why, perhaps to try and out do him, or maybe to conduct an experiment on how influencial Hegel was)... Inevitably no one attended Schopenhauer's lectures because everyone was so starstruck by Hegel's 'rockstar' status at the time. There's a good creator who went in to depth about this story... have a look here if you're interested - I'm not a huge fan of Schopenhauer's pessimistic philosophy, however one thing I can respect is his integrity to the discipline... and most importantly it's a big tell on why everything which followed Hegel has so many logical holes. If you're creating theory and you don't have a core understanding of how the world works... your philosophy is going to yield some pretty crappy results. I definitely believe in Hegel's idea of the dialectic - it's an undeniable truism... however most of his other ideas are pretty trash. Also, his conception of the dialectic is not really that groundbreaking. Many people would have observed it and eventually someone would have articulated it... Hegel just happened to be the one who articulated it first and he did a good job of spreading the concept... It's kinda like the iPhone - the invention was inevitable. Many companys were working on hand held touch phones and many got really close to developing a good working model... Apple just happened to get there first. Any other tech company could have made something as groundbreaking as the iPhone, but as fate went... Apple got there first. The same would have happened for articulating Hegel's dialectic. It was just bound to happen. I really don't think he's particularly special in any way
@@catatafish22 if i remember corectly Kar Popper wrote (somewhere in the Hegel chapter of the open society and its enemys) that Hegel used his political connections to the prussian state to promote his career.
@@comentedonakeyboard that makes sense, because I just rewatched the video. He published a paper claiming it was only physically possible for our universe to hold 7 celestial bodies 🤣… like even for his time that was retarded, the dwarf planet was discovered pretty shortly after. Cool book, I just googled it. The author indicts Plato, Hegel and Marx for relying on historicism to inform their philosophies… this is the exact definition which Weltgeist uses to define Hegel - ‘more of a historian than a philosopher’. Either his analysis is sharp af, or he was inspired by the book. Either way, Weltgeist probably has the best philosophical analysis I’ve heard. He summed up BGE, Genealogy and a few other Nietzsche books each in roughly an hour. So concise and easy to understand… I never thought it was possible to make N’s work easy to digest
I majored in black studies in college and read Black Feminist Thought. Was a black feminist. As I listen to you breakdown quotes, I’m searching for them in the book and seeing that in college years ago I’ve highlighted a lot of the quotes you’re reading. I’m like 😲🤯. It’s a trip learning from your videos why this stuff just didnt sound right. Learning the roots. Getting the tea. Thank you so much for these videos!
The ultimate question for the deconstructionist cultural Hegelians: Why is THIS ONE white guy the ONLY one who is ultimately mostly correct out of all others? Without him there’s NO CRT, no Marxism, no Leftism whatsoever past the vague anarchical crudities of Rousseau and Robespierre. Rousseau is very much the master mould model for the modern ghetto Black and White Trash absent father, by the way. What good have ANY of these Parasitoids done ANYONE?
You a sucker. You got taken advantage of. I can only imagine how many people you have hurt in the last decades. Did you mutilate your son? Shame on you.
It takes a very strong person to admit to themselves that perhaps they listened and embraced wrong teachings. I have nothing but immense respect for you.
Only Thomas Sowell ever engaged my interest consistently for this amount of time just by talking about ideas. I got the feeling Tom knew how good he was. I don't think James realises how important his voice is or how much he's changing thought out here in the real world.
It seems like Sowell got his glib attitude directly from Friedman. It's almost like he has the secret knowledge that the Anoited has the secret knowledge.. I wonder, being he was a raging marxist during his years under Friedman, if he would joking characterize himself as the synthesis? We are indebted to Sowell's works, they don't get nearly enough exposure.
"If we could only get rid of all the problems, we could have the perfect society" What if all the problems are people? This is the reality they _always_ come up against.
This is why gulags existed and why their modern form, cancel culture, exists. Systems predicated upon the perfect citizen cannot function with an imperfect citizenry because they have no built in mechanisms to moderate the impact of the imperfect citizen, unlike systems predicated upon imperfect citizens that inherently moderate the deleterious effects resulting from the imperfection of the citizenry. Societal systems that presume a perfect citizenry can only purge the imperfect citizen, or become unstable and eventually collapse, because they lack the means to mitigate the impact of imperfect citizens upon society.
Christians (at least the mainstream Christians, not Oneida-type Christians) have been trying to argue this for many years. We will never have utopia nor a workers' paradise because the people who make up those societies are all sinners. The problem is our human nature. When all the workers form their own paradise, that paradise will last about 30 minutes. Then it will cease to be paradise because our sin (which Christians believe we all inherit) will begin to manifest.
Hegel was a madman. He might say that a problem arises when floods kill humans. Therefore, humans should become more like floods in order to eliminate the contradictions that result in death.
0:40 Tweeting about Hegel gets you in trouble 2:23. Reading from Critical Race Theory: An Introduction 4:30. James’ goal: to teach you the Dialectic 10:00 Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis 11:45 Marcuse’s views on negative thinking 17:00 Young Hegelians 24:00 Engels: Hegel wasn’t ready for prime time 29:30 Marx’s dialectic 33:00 Hegel’s contribution to the dialectic 38:00 Failures of Marxism in the 20th century 42:09 The Woke incarnation of the dialectic 49:10 Marcuse’ take on the dialectic 57:20 Marcuse’s take on democracy 1:01:05 Post-Hegelianism / Post-Marxism 1:08:18 Patricia Hill Collins’ Black Feminist Thought 1:17:28 bell hooks’ Feminist Theory 1:21:50 Kim Crenshaw’s Seeing Race Again 1:24:40 Critical Turn in Education 1:27:50 Allison Bailey’s Tracking Privilege, Preserving Pushback 1:31:38 Henry Giroux’s teaching agenda 1:33:06 A few more points 1:34:15 structural determinism 1:37:00 Intersectional Dialectic 1:42:00 Aufhaben, the tool 1:46:10 Hermetic Alchemy 1:49:00 Alchemy with Language 1:52:05 Aufhaben der Kultur, Lukacs 2:01:30 Theosophy 2:09:00 A folk religion for Germany 2:13:05 marxists.org metaphysics of ideas 2:23:00 Hegel’s Trinities 2:31:25 Hegel’s God 2:40:30 Progressive Alchemy 2:44:16 Marcuse’s Eugenics 2:51:20 Robin DiAngelo’s Critical Whiteness 2:54:38 Marcuse’s critical theory 2:58:10 Men of Action and history 3:04:00 Verstehen and Vernunft 3:09:09 Hegel(ideas) -> Marx(state) -> Neo Marxists(culture) 3:14:50 Consequences of Hegel 3:18:10 Hegel vs Locke/Jefferson 3:23:15 Hegelianism and psychopaths 3:27:03 Interfaith movement 3:30:38 Leftists, Liberals and Conservatives 3:33:03 Conservative God(is) vs. Leftist God(becomes) 3:36:00 Practical advice: Avoid the dialectic 3:41:40 The dialectic’s stated goal (George Soros) 3:45:09 Wrap-up
James, I am an Environmental Studies student and we are constantly provided with theories that do not explain the underlying theories. It is expected that the foundation should be accepted even when I provide evidence that rejects the hypothesis. This vlog has really helped me to understand the thinking that is being forced on me. Thank you! I called a leftist friend of mine on his dialectic thinking and his response was "now that you know the secret knowledge I hope you will use it for good". You have hit the nail on the head and removed the wool from my eyes.
@robgreene9615 I think the dialectic is not that important. The main principle: Mind over matter. "I know the Truth and reality should bend to that." Dialectic is basically just a pseudo-logical confusion tactic to move things in the direction you want. A is the status quo. B is some made up reason the status quo is bad/incomplete/imperfect. C is my suggestion for fixing the world. Then I say A,B => C. It looks like a logical chain. But it really is just free association. It's a bit confusing to talk about it too much because its intent is to confuse. That's why "the Dialectic" has no fixed direction. It is just a pseudo-logic tool for scamming gullible people. So forget about the dialectic. Focus on the lack of REAL evidence for the benefit of societal experiments and power grabs. Also, concerning pseudo-logic, there was a really good article on James' Website called "Psychopathy and the origins of Totalitarism". Check it out! Also, could you give some details about what your friend said and what theories you are pressured to accept? I'm interested!
@@spambot_gpt7yeah but their feelings don't care about your facts, so we need another answer. May I suggest putting them in situations to be eaten by their own? Driving down the zombie hoard by piecemeal?
@@FlashArc Well, the real antidote is the one thing they fear most: Any kind of standards. Intellectual. Moral. Behavioral. If they eat themselves, they are still in the initiative. Instead, we have to retake the institutions and enforce a meritocracy that sidelines them completely.
@@mfciaccio Very cool, that’s an interesting field. I was in aerospace e, I liked things that fly. And blow other things up during the course of said flight.
In communistic Poland people were painting anti Marxist slogans on the walls, authorities were painting them over and someone was painting picture of a gnome on top. Finally they caught the gnome painter and asked him why. He responded: aniticommie slogan is thesis, you painting it over anithesis and a gnome on top - synthesis.
I'm only moderately brainy and I couldn't really handle this stuff when I was supposed to be doing it at university; I just couldn't get that first corner lifted so that I could see what was under it. But listening to this is manageable, so I'm going to plug my head into it for a few nights and I have much hope for results. I really do thank God for the people like you who give the internet such a good reason to exist. Bless you.
I often wonder how many of these people genuinely believe in what they're writing or whether they're just intellectually masturbating. If only they'd applied their minds to actually creating something useful instead of a destructive religion they may have improved lives across the globe rather than creating millions of miserable, resentful,angry people whose only goal in life is destroying things. It's almost as if they never expected to be taken seriously but were just theorising because they felt actual work was beneath them.
I really hope James can get on Jordan Peterson's podcast so he can share his insights to a wider audience in a relatively digestible manner because we need as many people to understand what's going on as possible.
@@shlomorabenovets4709 yeah I've seen it, but present day James has a lot more depth to his insights as he has clearly been doing more research on the subject. I want a more current perspective from both of them.
TelekineticCheez I had the same thought that Peterson is uniquely equipped to add more. I hope they team up to reverse engineer this mess of woketopian lunacy.
That is because, behind such rhetoric is nothing. Nothing begets nothing. Neither Hegal or Marx created anything. Both dealt in ideas and had their disciples were not all too human and wanted the good life without work; the evil that those disciples produced with over 100 million people murdered could never would have happened.
Better to read Hegel yourself. That way you might be able to see how badly James mangled him. Marx's interpretation of Hegel was based on a misunderstanding of his work. The irony of James's video is that he misunderstands Hegel too. Hegel was writing about human behavior not politics.
@@fastinbulvis2223Well then apparently a whole bunch of influential thinkers "misunderstood" Hegel. And applied his thought process to society and history at large. So maybe it was an extrapolation or wider application of his system. And not a "misunderstanding ". Guess you're gonna need to call Karl up in his grave to make sure😂😝
@@rheinhartsilvento2576 wrote: "Well then aparently a whole bunch of influential thinkers "misunderstood" Hegel." Actually, though I know you're joking and being sarcastic, that's exactly right. It was starting around the 1960's that a number of important (though not all were necessarily well known) thinker-writers began to have an uneasy feeling that Hegel was saying a lot more then was normally thought about him. For example, A.J Ayer, the great exemplar of logical positivism was aske if he still stood by everything he wrote in Language, Truth, and Logic, and he said, "No. But then, I hadn't read Hegel when I wrote it." Not an exact quote, but close. Another example was the great cultural historian and behaviorist Morse Peckham, who completely changed the direction of his work after his re-reading of Hegel. For me, it's obvious that he's the great philosopher of Cultural Transcendence. That's what his work is all about. It's why he's more relevant and useful now then ever, and why James Lindsay is wrong about him.
@@fastinbulvis2223 This is precisely the problem. Folks like you always think they have the correct interpretation, and everyone else must have gotten it wrong. The arrogance alone makes you completely unlistenable. Frankly James' lecture predicts your exact behavior.
What make me laugh is a bunch of black radical feminists have a philosophy tracing back to some white German male who would probably hold them in complete contempt.
@@chrishoff402 Marx and Engels were horribly racist and many of their infamous commie follower / revolutionaries over the years have been too (e.g. Che Vegara). Of course this is ignored by these radicals. But why would we be surprised? Objective truth means nothing to them. Just the false veneer / pretense of truth to get their claws into power. The deceived, deceiving the deceived.
3:39:55 "You can't create through a negation process. Aufhaben doesn't "make." Critical Theory doesn't build. Critical Theory doesn't understand -- it has no obligation to understand. It only has obligation to aufhaben der kultur. It only has obligation to tear down."
After reviewing some dozen or more of these lectures in their entirety, I am convinced that this lecture is your finest one. At least of those I sampled this far. It was my first and I had to listen carefully to it twice. It was rough going, but as an introduction to the whole thing, there is no finer explanation. This is the video I give to everybody I can. I tell them the scales will fall from their eyes and they will never see anything happening in their lives in the same way. Their entire life will need to be reappraised. Simply mind-blowing. Thank you.
I’m only twenty-five minutes in, but it’s so incredibly good already. I think especially he does a great job showing how the dialectic paradigm could be such a constructive tool for society if you have competent participants working in good faith. It really helps one understand the chimp with a machine gun aspect.
@@LlibertarianGalt Like The Road Runner will always be the bane of Willy Coyote's life. We can invent meaning from anything that suits our predisposition. The coyote has unlimited access to Acme explosives, rockets, cranes, and band-aids, all to no avail. Tom and Jerry, Jesus and devils, Batman and Robbin; the list of fiction is endless. Thanks for your interest and contribution to the comedy hour.
Straight up sophistry. These people are high verbal IQ sociopathic sophists. All of it falls apart with the slightest bit of critique. They only win the argument if they can tie you up in bs semantic knots. Thats why they never argue the points unless they know theyre arguing with somebody who is clearly going to buckle. The risk/reward is skewed. All it takes is one moderately knowledgeable person to introduce any of several questions and it totally dismantles their narrative for everyone listening forever. Their best case scenario is basically neutral. They *need* power to bend others to their whims.
@@za5820 this made me realize how good these activists are at activism their ideas are trash everything they touch turns to trash and collapses, so they have no long term effectiveness yet somehow they've sold their "Midas of Trash" touch to all these high profile institutions, corporations, bureaucracies --- got to admire that in a warped way
I knew about 90% of this already. But to the extent of having a 2,000 piece jigsaw puzzle on the dining room table with just the edges two thirds done. This is a case of knowing all the individual pieces is not enough. It is putting it together the way James did that helps us understand just how dangerous and misguided it is.
@Chris C you’re exactly right. They have big money behind them. Capitalist money at that, the only time you ever see their bullshit ideas semi work, is when they’re riding on the back of capitalism lol. I highly recommend any work by Prof. Anthony Sutton, especially “why bankers live socialism” (I believe that’s what it’s called). He also points out how people in high places funded national socialism, American socialism (the welfare state under FDR) and Bolshevik socialism (communist Russia).
@@casteretpollux But Lincoln was a Marxist. Leftism makes the lights come on in America. Liberty is Leftist. I like leftism and I abhor the fascist stupidity we swim through.
“My dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast as that.” - The Queen of Hearts, Alice in Wonderland
Because this guy is a hack? The goal of history is the consciousness of freedom fully expressed as substantial subjectivity in the form of a Protestant state. God Hegel was a real lunatic, he actually believed real dangerous ideas like Christianity and science were signs of advanced social organization.
@@keblee2443 the Lutheran State, whose main mode of intellectual inquiry is natural science represents in a concrete form the historical Telos. That is the conclusion of Hegel’s philosophical history. This apologetic tendency, which refused to cordon off a world of Philosophical Ideality constituted merely of vain insubstantial Platonic postulates and rather reconcile reason with existential reality, directly precipitated the subsequent appropriation of his work for reactionary purposes. Maybe actually read Hegel. He’s a brilliant historian and philosopher and a Titan of Western Culture.
Equality is thesis (Bait), Equity is the antithesis, (Switch), and cultural strife is the synthesis that acts as a mechanism of controlling the populace. The establishment know this as a tactical propaganda subversion formula. In sales presentations you have deficit, solution and call to action.
aunt jenifer intelligence whistle blowers all warned when top officials like Biden and Harris start trying to sell, “Equity,” to the working class, the people need to start to speaking up!
That’s why the establishment, including billionaires, can promote wokeism without fear of their own position being toppled. Wokeism is just a way of achieving power, not using it. If you want to use an idea to your benefit, just co-opt it and bend its adherents to your will. They will march off a cliff like lemmings if you tell them what they want to hear. The dialectic is a slippery fish.
January’s Son “wokeism is just a cheap way of achieving power, not actually using power! It’s just co-opting and bending adherents to the will of top ruling class war criminals who are calling the shots because they were trusted to appropriate taxpayer secured slush funds.”
*Dr. Lindsay. From a tyrannized Iran. I have used my everything to fight this socialist Islamic-masked regime. I pray for you every day.* *God bless you for the books you've written. For the material you prepare every day. Long live liberty.*
Has he really? This gives me hope. I've kept my eyes peeled for JP to sync with JL for months now, but feel like JP's somehow avoided Lindsay. Not sure why. They need to talk, weekly.
@@tamara6771 all of the signs were right in front of our faces in the 90s. i mean...idk if you're old enough to remember, but it's odd...lookin' back on those days.
James. Mr. Lindsay, I’m so impressed by your drive to break through the cynical morass of wokeness all the way to its pure Hegelian essence that, I, a man of meager means, will donate to your work and hope this inspires other “working class intellectuals” to do the same!!!
Too bad you can't connect wokeness to Hegel in any real sense, since they exist in different centuries, etc. The only reason to attempt such a dishonest association, would be to fear-monger or line someone's pockets.(Like yours, James).
Is it an honest reading of Hegel though? I think you should be warry of representations of complicated systems of thought (such as Hegel's) when the primary aim is to make a political statement (an attack of certain contemporary 'leftist' phenomena - which in itself is a huge generalization/antagonization). I'm sorry, I have not found the time to sit through all 4 hours of this lecture, but from the comments it seems like Lindsay is doing to Hegel what Peterson is doing to Foucault.
Wait a second, I was doing some research on Lindsay's position on Hegel and found this quote: "Black lives matter" is a Hegelian/Neo-Marxist dialectic meant to negate "all lives matter," i.e., "all men are created equal." The synthesis (their goal) is "some (politically Black) lives matter more than others (and there's an intersectional hierarchy of mattering)". Is this really something that Lindsay said? If he said that, he's probably taking the piss, right?
Also, "wokeness" is more of a corporate strategy to pacify/ameliorate a threat to the existing superstructure, in as cosmetic a way as possible, than some powerful grass-roots revolution. IMO. Some want to present "wokeness" as top-down indoctrination by a powerful cabal. Because reasons.
One of the greatest meditations on these subjects I've stumbled upon on UA-cam, thank you so much New Discourses. I deeply appreciate that you took the time to make this!
James gives a helpful description of the concept of “historicism” here and in his previous “communism doesn’t know how” podcast. It’s really helping me understand Karl Popper’s book “the open society and its enemies” where he launches right into the term in the very first chapter. Thanks James 👍🏻
Yes, this Is very good stuff here. 👏. Bravo. The everyday people need to understand Hegelian Dialect more! Builds up to Post Modernism. Makes Peterson seem like a pre cursor to this knowledge.
Today's 'new' Marxists always claim that true communism has never been achieved. Tired of their worn out argument I've been hearing across continents and decades. Their delusion and stupidity reveals the indoctrination their leaders have subjected them to. Leftoids TODAY are SICKER than it appears on the surface. The sheeple of Latter Day Woke and their government high priests, Schumer, Pelosi, Schift, Nadler, Sanders, Swallowsnot, the CIA, et al are Satan's new Leninists and Nazis!
Couldn't believe I listened your entire rant, and enjoyed every bit of it. Unbelievably I think I'll re-listen (not replay, that'll be a wrong word) sometime soon.
Just have to comment again: Lindsay is fantastic. Listened to this twice now and while I've been following Stephen Hicks since the 00's the color and detail James is adding is an accessible asset to our understanding of the leftist movement. When people ask questions that reference Lindsay's efforts, it means he's having an impact.
This goes even deeper than operating system. The Hegelian Dialectic is more like the kernel of Leftism and each iteration (Marxian, feminism, woke, etc.) Are like different operating systems made using the same kernel. Definitely an eye opening video!
Fascism is also a Hegelian principal, but you can't exactly say it's the dialectical progression of history. What you can say is that the Young Hegelians turned into the socialists, but the Old Hegelians, who saw Prussia as the perfect state, turned into Fascists, who tried to create the perfect state in the now with Actual Idealism.
@@ganjaericco Hence why Adolf's main target to deride and differentiate from were the Lenin-Marxists/communists - they were directly competing for the same supporters and the same goal of utopia
@@6Sparx9 I call BS. The fascists in Germany were largely rooted in the urban petty bourgeoisie, protestant clerks and students and catholic peasants. Some workers joined but we're the minority. The Communists dominated the workers and jobless. It was an enormous difference between them. Also the Communists resisted the fascists the most.
@@mortalkomment8028 The SA during the height of its membership, before it was superceded by the SS had a phrase regularly used amongst the rank and file called 'Beefsteaks', which was used to describe the enormous number of communists, especially in the nothern provinces, who joined the SA. ...Most likely due to the appeal of persons such as Geoege Strasser. They called them beefsteaks and joked they were brown on the outside, but red on the inside. Large numbers of these communists rallied behind the SA from the splintering of the SPD and USPD, as well as the Freikorps that was used by the SPD against the USPD to supress the Spartacus League during the German Revolution which included a failed communist revolution and resulted in the formation of the Weimar Republic. Nobody was happy with the turn of events and the SA lapped up all the disgruntled communists despite their agression toward the ultra-extreme groups like the USPD and later KPD. The SA and party it was attached to made a lot of concessions for establishing and promoting socialist programs once in power, some of which they later went back on and some they followed through with but they were popular across the board. Facism is rooted in Marxism anyway, its no supprise there is immense overlap in their worldview and goals.
1:47:48 "Critical race theory can be thought of as race gnosticism." Brilliant! In fact, we should start calling it "race gnosticism" on a regular basis.
Voddie Baucham is a Christian preacher who has been using the term 'ethnic gnosticism' to communicate a similar idea. His titular sermon is here: ua-cam.com/video/Ip3nV6S_fYU/v-deo.html
@@mikeoveli1028 It's an ideology pent in Hell, how's that for understanding? Seriously, fuck your talk of credentials, it's all subversive utopian nonsense.
Anyone who hasn't should read Max Stirner. He was friends with all of the Young Hegalians, and his two notable works (The Unique and its Own, and Stirner's Critics) both lay out quite succinctly that the Dialectic is just a rationalist version of religion (He calls them "pious atheists"). Basically he explains their pursuit of dismantling religion through philosophy, they, accidentally or otherwise, have created what is essentially a secular copy of the church with their dogmas derived from, and faith in the perfection of the dialectic, rather than God.
If you hate your boss and capitalism enough it will magically bring about a utopia. -Inane trolling that only an idiot would take seriously. It isn't so much a religion as active nihilism.
Dude. I've only gotten to the 2 hour 30 mark, but I've been listening to this for the past 4 weeks and the actual listening time is much greater. It has provided a tremendous amount of insight and pointers for further study.
49:22 Marcuse's "One-Dimensional Man" did not sell 300,000+ copies in its first year. No chance. There are only 20 copies (hardcover and paperback) available of the 1964 printings available for sale currently on ABE Books. Such a low availability suggests sales about 99.5% reduced from 300,000.
It sounds like they (Hegel, Engels, Marx, etc.) wanted to take the diffuse and dynamic expertise (amongst autonomous individuals) and make it very static and centralized amongst a select few. The philosopher kings. They must have been terrified of spontaneous order or maybe they didn’t see the wonder and efficiency that is natural selection.
This is not neccessarily true. Hegel believed that "philosophy also arrives on the scene too late." It is only the world-historical figures, such as Plato, Socrates, Hitler, Napoleon, Martin Luther, etc. which are indicators of world-spirit acting in a cataclysmic way. So, to Hegel, philosophers are not ruling technocrats, the way that leftists would desire themselves to be under a Marxist paradigm. Rather, they are more like translators of history, rendered logically. They identify spirit.
Actually marx is one of the least deterministic philosophers. "The educators need to be educated." is perhaps the best example if this. He didn't believe that roles should be prescribed but rather he advocated for a system that caters for each according to his own need (in similar principle to that used by in families of the bourgeoisie). This individualistic element is often lost in interpretations of his work.
When I read spontaneous I had to think of Epicurus. Because of the joyful aspect of spontaneity. Did philosophers of that school ever criticize their materialist broth... err stepmothers from hell?
Lindsay is misrepresenting. Part of where we get this distinction between right and left comes from different interpretations of hegel. Hegel had a autocratic side but he thought liberal capitalism was the ultimate culmination of human history.
Would we still be in the garden without the help of snek? Surely, YHWH is infalliable right? Otherwise he couldn't be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and perfect. So, logically Genesis is flawed OR a deliberate plan by God to gift man free will by presenting a simple rule and giving man the freedom to break it if he so chooses. The other animals in the garden don't even get the option to eat from the tree of knowledge. God deliberately tells Adam about the tree, and had he not Adam might never have eaten from its fruits as there were plenty of other trees. Also, the tree is in the garden. If you don't want to risk accidental self knowledge fruits from being eaten why plant it in the garden where it could be accidentally eaten. What if a fallow deer eats one of the apples that falls from the tree of knowledge at the end of the fruiting season? Maybe God put snek in the tree (he did create everything so that includes snek) so that Adam would get tempted. Eve being blamed is just the start of the patriarchy so those Jews who conspired to write the Torah could repress women. All written religions locate men as authority figures, when prior spiritual schemes tended to elevate women and goddesses in a pantheon or animistic scheme. Why is Christianity not seen as a deeper conspiracy than cultural Marxism? The Roman Catholic Church is just a way to subvert and exploit the message of an evangelical baptist who advocated not funding Synagogues when lessons could be taught in the field on why it was nice to be nice to each other and help the sick and needy and homeless with direct action rather than money donated to an institution most of which is then spent on making the institution look more awesome. Did Jesus talk of original sin and the punishment of eternal Hell then raise funds for a Sistine Chapel through the sale of plenary indulgences to cancel out an invented sin to avoid an invented Hell? I thought Jesus talked about loving your neighbor as you love yourself, and revering God. I am not even convinced he was resurrected. It seems to be superfluous to his main message. Jesus is basically Jordan Peterson cleaning your room and helping society and yourself by taking on responsibility, all this "believe in the Passion and ye will be saved" is bullshit expedience to trick the rich into donating to the church on their death beds out of fear they need to save their souls that they have been brainwashed into thinking they have and will be punished hereafter. Catholicism and the confessional are just loopholes. Religious Mania and potentially heretical hallucinations turned into canonical miracles by the Vatican bureaucracy. Celibacy but anal sex with altar boys as it doesn't count? Ratzinger and the Nazis. Pius and the Crusades. Francis seems okay, I guess but they took a risk having someone not yet dead as Pope as he could say the wrong thing. Biden is basically the DNC's pope. A useless brain addled puppet cowed by a history of racism and sexual abuse to serve the BLM and MeToo agendas. He hasn't read a single one of the Executive Orders that Kamala wrote for him to sign. People on the right think Kamala is a joke, and they are in for a huge surprise. The Joker laugh masks a Joker schemer. Obama clearly wanted Kamala to be 46th and Tulsi embarrasing Kamala meant a rapid change of plans and after a few quick phone calls and promises to Sanders to do some of his socialist manifesto if he betrayed his grassroots berniebros and a job for Mayor Pete he can't easily fuck up and the semblance of a Democratic Primary by running Joe against Liz and Joe doesn't pick Liz, or Tulsi, or Stacey, but Kamala who had dropped out. Wake up. It was Kamala all along, Biden was just a blip. He is doing Obama's dirty work because Constitutional Scholar Obama knows he can't have three terms to push his globalist socialist agenda and economic reset. Wall St. is happy as they think they can profit off the Chinese market being brought slightly right towards a median socialist world government. That is why Fauci had to create a bioweapon to assassinate Trump's economy, and force him out of office. How often do US Presidents get reelected when their first term yields a strong economy? COVID had to come along to fuck up the US so they could displace Trump, as a capitalist nation state and Chinese tariffs was against the globalist socialist harmonisation programme that would get them their one world government. The Big Pharma cabal got Fauci to REEE about J&J's single dose vax, unnecessarily, as the convenience of one jab undercut the sale of their double jabs. Big Tech suppressed this Lab story (and is suppressing the Chinese dox on assessing coronaviruses as potential bioweapons now, so expect the whole truth to take another year to surface through FOI), then the Hunter laptop thing that the FBI had during the Primaries which should have kept Joe from running, was suppressed at the behest of the NSA to ensure BHO got his Vice in temporarily, do some dirty work, then use the 25th amendment to chuck Joe out and swap for his original, derailed, pick. Then expect Kamala to blame Joe for the bad border policy, complete the wall and stop catch and release. She will go all Law & Order on Latinos. Trans Rights Activists and BLM will have their head in a spin when she drops the facade. Ben Shapiro underestimates her competence. Obama wouldn't have picked her for his old job if he couldn't rely on her. We may see AOC as her Vice, as AOC basically sets the agenda of the extreme progressive left. Techically, from a certain point of view AOC is President right now. LOL. So, conspiracies all around, this dialectic nonsense is just something to undermine universities and thereby journalism courses to create a compliant Fourth Estate. 9/11 -> Patriot Act. 1/6 -> Pelosi killed Ashli. It is all the same circus, whether Republican or Democrat. The deep state runs America. The anomaly was PoMo Trump trolling his way into office in a way the media could not deflect. Trump isn't Deep State, and was once Dem and friendly with the Clintons when in New York, then considering running as an Independent, until Perot showed how lame that looked, so he pulled a Tony Blair and turned the existing Republican party into a populist Constitutional Conservative America First party, pandering at first to the military industrial complex (cause you have to otherwise you get JFK'ed) and then feeling ethically guilty about drones and got rid of Bolton and pushed for peace in the Middle East, whilst not starting any new wars. Hippies like Eric Weinstein should vote Trump, but they are too traumatised by the Shoah to risk electing someone who all media and social media describe as worse than Hitler. Had the first false impeachment not failed we would not have had this pandemic. Trump will probably get assassinated by Obama if he runs in 2024. The best 5D chess move he can make is appear to be running until the last minute then support a DeSantis Noem ticket and speak at their rallies behind green glass to draw crowds. People want the show, but don't need the man, and Kristi's CPAC speech almost makes her look more Trump than Trump. South Dakota never had a lockdown. Florida came out of its lockdown early yet protected its elderly, it banned CRT, and inspired ex-Cuban refugees to support Republican capitalism. The pendulum will swing back to constitutional conservatism and providing they don't make Abortion an issue, but instead run on gun rights / free speech / trade tariffs, the border/immigration won't even need to be an issue as Harris will have resolved it Trumpstyle by 2024 in order to try to get elected. The economy won't be too bad either as 2022 will stop the money printer going brrrr. Bitcoin will crash and then Gold will surge. Everything is going back to normal. Even the movies will stop being woke in about eighteen months time. You'll see....
@@____uncompetative I grew up christian but love studying all the philosophies and belief systems of humanity. I also love genetic genealogy and the field of psychology and psychiatry as ways to see how we organize the traits of humanity using all the knowledge of the brain and the past. I'm a 40 year old woman- my conclusion is that we currently exist in a realm with others who have disconnected from our creator, God, light....etc. The beauty we experience is a memory of where our souls have been and through stories (bible etc.) we've tried to reconcile where we are and where we've been. I take the bible as a metaphor. The snake and garden "ground" us in the realm. This evil, dark realm full of death and destruction - yin and yang- no real progress of escaping the bad. Knowledge is only applicable to this earthly realm so its of no use though we, as evil beings, see it as the greatest achievement. Still being tricked that to "know" actually means something when to FEEL and submit to that little corner of our being that remembers love, light and like all of humanity, considers we came from somewhere else. This is satan's world. We are all here for a reason. I believe we can escape through faith which reconnects us to the light-- if not, your soul probably circles back time and time again-- here and maybe even in other dark realms. I think the reconnecting is what we see as "heaven" and to put it plainly, I don't believe our consciousness (part of the soul) is fully severed when we pass. I think IF YOU BELIEVE in reconnecting it will go on. IF YOU DON"T believe in anything you maybe be relegated to darkness or cease to move on- very low awareness- meaningless- IF YOU AREN"T SURE you come back here where the memories exist but the less you believe the further you get from the memories. (love, light, positive emotion). This wraps all the belief systems together along with science. Your brain will see what you choose it to see-- or "free will" but evil earthlings have used it as a behavior rather than a belief.
Was steaming some table clothes for over 2 hrs.. Thank you for the insightful understanding and for helping me make good use of my ears for a mundane task 😀. Look forward to finishing tomorrow. And re-listening for taking proper notes 📝
Sir, I can't thank you enough for this deep dive into Hegelian Philosophy. As a reformed Christian, this has been immensely educational for me. God bless you!
You should check out the Hegelian Right (Christian application of Hegel to Theology). This video is full of the author's bias, Hegel was a neutral author that inspired Christian Theology.
You're the most underrated content creator in the political domain. It actually frustrates me that those political content creators that lean more towards entertainment get more exposure than you. Which is one of the reasons why the left constantly progresses, because they educate their base and they take serious academic content like this seriously, but those on the right or conservatives are mainly watching guys like Crowder, Ben Shapiro, and Charlie Kirk Who offer just about zero substantive content.
He's much better but not really enough. This video really fails to explain why Hegel was equally attractive to the right wing also of Jena University in Germany back in the 19th century, and also had many right wing, conservative Hegelian thinkers. And he seems to fail at directly addressing Hegel himself (not the interpretations of Marx or the non-communist left). Because all his understanding and criticism of Hegel here is dependent of later Leftist instantiations, who himself had no knowledge or possible way of knowing how his conceptual system would be used after his life - his critique rather founders on itself by making Hegel a Leftist, which he absolutely was not whe he wrote his major works. And unlike other far more original rightist conservatives like Scruton who was able to appreciate the subtlety if Hegel's "labour of the negative", despite his rejection of it, this video is just plainly wholesale dismissive of the vital concept.
If you want a truly intelligent defense of the right conservatism, Scruton is probably the best thinkers recently out there, and although he probably did not reach wokeist ideology, presents a far more substantive critiques of the Left and follows its historical development closely.
@@erlinacobrado7947 I'm not sure his intentions were to critique Hegel, nor do I think he necessarily considered Hegel a leftist. The purpose was to focus on leftism and its implementation of Hegelian philosophy, which would make it unnecessary to really get into Hegel himself politically.
@@erlinacobrado7947 Yeah, I've got some Scruton books, but I'm not particularly looking for anything in defensive conservatism. I also don't think Lindsay is defending conservatism, but liberal democracy. I don't even know that Lindsay is a conservative, if I'm not mistaken, Lindsey considers himself a left of center liberal, or a classical liberal of sorts. I do really appreciate the heads up, though. I just appreciate Lindsey's approach to actually taking time and putting an effort into trying to educate people with in-depth material.
The reason for their discomfort is not so clear, and James has mused on this too. One would think that those on the Left who study this field would be confident and secure in their depth of knowledge, whereas in fact they seem insecure and resent any intrusion - even if it's just the one guy versus their numbers in many institutions. I see this quite often in the Far Left; behind the bluster a concern that their house of cards wouldn't take much to topple it. I put a large amount of their insecurity down to them watching and judging each other more than their opponents - there are some fault-lines there if we learn how to exploit them..
@@jakell99 (this is a long half baked comment from somebody who is relatively new to higher level philosophy, do with it whatever you want) its seems pretty clear to me. Look at rates of mental illness broken down by political ideology. Marxists are the most insecure and mentally ill, the alt right is the least insecure and mentally ill. These ideas aren't just ideas to them, this is who they are. When you adopt intersectionality, (marxist materialism and atheism in general exaggerate this effect) the ideology becomes literally everything you are. Everything is political to them, (i forgot who the feminists where who said "the personal is the political") and when everything is political including every single part of their intersectional identity, and this is what politics means to them, when they lose that or feel it losing stability, they feel that they are losing everything without even realizing it. That may be why you hear about "black bodies" and other similar terminology that reduces existence to just a hollow body with a skin colour. To your average non politically inclined person, their ideas aren't this crucial to them, but losing them still feels like losing a small part of yourself. To a scientifically inclined person, evidence is evidence, they simply don't have an attachment to ideas in the same way as others. Throw in feminism, the devaluation of sex, masturbation, body positivity, drugs, etc. And you have a decent helping of biological and unconscious factors that push people towards mental insecurity andd weakness. They basically turn humans into nothing but hollow shells of themselves while pushing in the indulgence of vices and rejection of any kind of responsibility or meaning to anything.
@@Andrew-th8jk let me help you even more. Seriously look into Cluster B personality disorders. Specifically how narcassitic individuals frame the world, see the world, and relate to the world. It will make sense.
@@damnmexican90 I believe an even simpler yet truthful analysis that isn't prevalent in psychology because of the left wing bias there would be to simply identify the individuals as "libtards", despite them contradicting liberalism.
@@damnmexican90 rather fitting that ndp stands for narcissistic personality disorder as well as new democratic party, which is the democratic socialist party of Canada. They used to be called the communist party but that changed. Nowadays they are extraordinarily authoritarian and definitely wouldn't support the anarchy/statelessness that communism requires.
Of course... listening to this again as it is brilliant. I don't think it's just Hegel. I think it is Idealist thought without grounding... generally. Remember... Kant sought to resolve or ground Hume... & Schopenhauer sought to correct " the great Kant. " When one studies Idealism, one has to be extremely careful in not transposing whatever Idealism one studies... upon one's everyday life in this world of representation/appearances. Idealism... imho... save for those of Berkeley & Kant... will absolutely lead one to extreme skepticism. Even they will lead one to that, but both offer resolutions to that issue - God & Deontology. I guess we could say that Schopenhauer grounded his Idealism in a Will without a purpose. When Idealism isn't resolved... it turns into that extreme skepticism ( Modern skepticism, that is. I don't find much wrong in ancient skepticism, ) and all of the ills James is talking about. Ancient Skepticism realizes that all thought turns into an infinite regress... & tells one to be calm in the face of that... & not go down the effin rabbit hole of trying to find The Thing Itself, imho. In the end, Idealism says that there is probably... The Thing Itself & one MUST know that it is unattainable, and seek to resolve that quest for it... or one will go down the path of the infinite regress of thought turned into action: Implementation of the Dialectic. They keep coming up with additions in their dialectical quest, because their mind is engaged in an infinite regress acted out in the world. They are digging a hole to the other side of the world, and, of course, need an infinite amount of shovels ( tools ) to get there! Essentially, as we see of them... they do not exist in reality... they are in a fantasy quest for something they can never attain... The Thing Itself. That is, in themselves as individuals, and in reality. Goedell tells us in his Incompleteness Theorems... that we can, indeed, go on forever... and we need to ground our realization that this is, indeed, a world of subjective representation and appearances... or we will spin out of control like the ungrounded Idealists...
A tour de force, James. I suggest a future episode on the roots of Hegalian Dialectic, which goes back to Plato. Hegel was deeply influenced by Plato. Hegel's "state" looks a lot like Plato's Republic.
According to Popper, "Republic" is a biased translation of that title. A literal translation would be the "Constitution" or "The City-State" or the "State"
However, the idea that Plato created the _Republic_ as a vehicle to describe his idea of the ideal state is outright b.s., and I have read the book (admittedly only in translation). What the text says is the he wants to describe what the principles of justice are, meaning what is social justice or what is fairness for the individual person. He says very clearly that he will describe his conception of the ideal society but only for the purpose of illustrating what the principles of justice are. He says that he does this because explaining what justice is for the individual is too complicated. I think he's copping out, or maybe the word was not translated quite correctly. In any case, what justice for the individual constitutes is the individual being provided or allowed to hold a position in society consistent with their own nature. This is what the "Myth of the Metals" passage is about. The idea even found its way into Marxism in the dictum "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This idea never meant what some people think it does, that the most productive do the work and the most profligate consumers get everything they want without doing a lick of useful work. The idea in fact refers back to the Platonic order and the idea that there is some hierarchy of natures within the human herd, leaving different individuals with different abilities and different needs. The roots of Marxism in Platonic idealism are very strong but on the ground it didn't work out so well in the Soviet system. The workers gave according to their ability and received a good pair boots every two years and a week in the Crimea. The administrative class gave according their ability too and received according to their need for a better apartment, occasional caviar, first class train tickets and shopping trips in Paris. There you have it.
@@goldmanstaxxx6408 Say something. If you are going to discuss philosophy, you need to put it on the table. Like I did. Maybe you are neo-Aristotelian in your viewpoint and you understand that my take on Plato is the definitive pushback against neo-Aristotelianism. Well, you have to live with it.
@James Patrick "A community of women" is also included in "The Manifesto of the Communist Party." You have to destroy the family if you are a statist, Marxist, or true Socialist. It's their #1 goal.
I avoid studying Hegel and Marx. Instead I study the dialogue of people who read Hegel and Marx. Often their explanations of Hegel and Marx are steeped in confusion, while those who support Hegel and Marx tend to have massive logical holes in their arguments.
Wow. This was enlightening. I heard these words used so many times, but never had a good understanding of what they actually meant to the people that use them. Thanks.
Suggesting to read Hicks to learn about Philosophy is like suggesting reading Dawkins to learn about The Bible or Ayn Rand to learn about socialism or Richard Wolf to learn about capitalism, why not just recommend reading the original sources instead of someone who strawmans them.
29:37 Minor correction (for those who wish to read it in full): Marx "My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite." is from the afterword to the second (German) edition of Capital I, not the preface.
This is undersold. It is an impressively comprehensive review of Left politics and philosophy over the last 200 years. I am in awe. This needs to be in the academic reading/watching list anywhere where political history and philosophy is still being taught.
Amazing podcast. I'm so pleased that you connected these contemporary political and philosophical movements to their metaphysical roots. It all starts there! Once obvious example through the evolution of the lingo of today is how the word, "woke" was used primarily by spiritual seekers around 2012 to describe spiritual awakening, being awake to the nature of reality, and the coming of the "apocalypse" (which means unveiling, or awakening). Around 2016 during the US election, this was adopted by the conspiracy theorists to describe their awakening to the political and government conspiracies. And now we see this label being thrown around by the social justice and political activists to describe their awakening to the societal systems and structures of racial and class oppression. I've watched it go from this ism to that ism, from spiritual to secular, and today I'm anxiously waiting for where "woke" will go next.
Hegels absolute knowledge is the realisation that everything is always in contradiction with itself. i.e we think we have self certainty until we find a truth that contradicts that. That's how we/the world develops through an ongoing dialectic of opposition and re-evaluation. The dialectic has no end, no final stopping point . Marx thought he could overcome the contradictions of capitalism with communism but he was wrong. I wouldn't blame Hegel
@@GODHATESADOPTION Hegel called ideas like "A=A" and the law of non-contradiction, as "nothing but the law of abstract understanding." Such laws accurately describe the consistency of things that are essentially mathematical in character. But when you look at a question like, "Is so-and-so a good person?", these laws of abstract understanding do not really function very well. "If A is a good person, what do good people do? OK, but on January 15th, 2021, A did not do the things that good people do. Therefore, A is not a good person." That would logically follow, would it not? What Hegel was pointing out is that logic does not work like that in the conceptual realm. Hegel would be much more comfortable with a statement like, "If you are going to be yourself, then you are going to have to change." If you are poisoned by the presenter of this video to Hegel, then simply replace the vehicle with G.K. Chesterton, a conservative Christian who nonetheless was perfectly at home with paradox, and the limitations of abstract understanding. To bridge the gap between abstract understanding, and what Hegel called "the concrete" (life as actually lived, situations as they actually are,) then you can say that "A" is "how a person is at a specific instant in time." But when we are talking about who people are, we are typically NOT talking about who a person is at a specific instant; we are much more interested in who and how that person is as a process.
@@GODHATESADOPTION Yes, Hegel's concept of the dialectic recognizes teleology. But only by looking backwards. You can't predict the future with Hegelian thinking. Like how you could look at your life, and see how things developed, what role things played in making a certain outcome. Or how you could look at your body, and see, "Oh, well, my stomach digests food, and my throat brings food to it from my mouth." Telos, telos. But you can't then say, "So in the future, this is definitely what my future will be." Hegel didn't believe or argue that. Karl Marx did, but Karl Marx also wrote, "My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite."
I think that Heidegger and his understanding of the need for a Destruktion of thought going back to Plato and his concern over inauthenticity of culture would slot in nicely with a lot of this analysis. Not that your excellent breakdown needed any padding. :)
my friend and also james, heidegger goes from the idea of human fear of emptiness, hegel says something like: the human is evolving therefore it must be good and good into a goal ( prove , where is the prove??) So for heidegger destruction is always there always, no possibilty to escape to a higher utopia
@@Hans-mg5nf grim, but allowing freedom at moments. I think Heidegger believed art was a respite. Unlike Hegel, a freaky Prussian wizard, wiggling the rubber bone of Utopia of a spiked pit.
@@mikkelborchsenius1156 Ok lets go for conflict: I never liked hegel, there is no end utopia or reunited between ' god ' and his ' son ' or something in the end of times , both must excist realism and utopiasme, forever. Sorry for my bad english 😎😎😎
"Should you ever intend to dull the wits of a young man and to incapacitate his brains for any kind of thought whatsoever, then you cannot do better than give him Hegel to read." -Schopenhauer, quoted by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies
Holy sh&t. I never thought how deep this attack really goes. I had a basic idea/understanding of what this woke left was, I’m definitely not an intellectual and my mind is blown. I will have to listen again so I can have a better understanding of what I am listening to. The double speak and language I noticed to a degree but it sounds like anything can actually mean anything depending on context and desired effect. Well thank you, this was incredible and mind opening.
Really, if you want to know about Kant or Hegel, read a book written by them. This video, and by extension the video's creator, are doing you a disservice. And pushing an agenda. Whether it's for profit/clicks or another reason, I couldn't say.
@@shannonm.townsend1232 The agenda of this podcast is to expose the "operating system" that the left are operating under. The point isn't to speak a lecture that discusses the the totality of Kant or Hegel intellectual works. Kant and Hegel are important (within this podcast) about the matter that they believed in alchemy and dialectic thinking and how this thinking influenced Karl Marx. Karl Marx is important because he devised his theory of revolution that we call Marxism. This is all important because we have modern day alchemists who are creating their utopia within the basic worldview of Marxism.
"The Dialectic is a method of Worship" 1) No it is not and 2) there is no consistent dialectic between Marx and Hegel. You can see from Peter Kalkavage's book _The Logic of Desire_ that Hegel's Dialectic focuses on three primary moments in ontological progression: cancelation, preservation, and lifting up. This in itself is the essential point of determinate negation and aufheben. Determinate Negation is something which Hegel theorized from Spinoza, specifically Jacobi's interpretation of Spinoza which stated "Omnis Determinatio est negatio," all determination is negation. One of Hegel's key metaphors for this process is That of the bud, blossom, and fruit in §2 of the Phenomenology of Spirit (sections symbols aren't hard to make, you simply hold down alt and press 0167). However, what may be tricky for some to understand is that this metaphor, besides being a representation of a representation, is a representation of the logic working phenomenologically (on the level of phenomena) and not on the level of ontology. For the understanding of the logic ontologically, we must turn to Hegel's _Science of Logic_ _(Wissenschaft der Logik)._ It is the beginning part of the Logic that we see this play out in the triad of Being, Nothing, Becoming. Furthermore, we must recognize that this triad -- Being, Nothing, Becoming -- is 1 part of the Objective Logic, the other part of the Objective Logic includes Essence, and still beyond that the last part of the Logic of Science has the Subjective Logic, which is the logic of Concepts or conceptualization. Why do I bring this up? Because Hegel project is the unity of Objective and Subjective which is first §17 of the Phenomenology of Spirit: " In my view, which can be justified only by the exposition of the system itself [Science is only absolute as systematized], _everything turns on grasping and expressing the True, not only as Substance, but equally as Subject."_ [my emphasis] Understanding Substance as Subject is this understanding that Substance (the objective side) is moved and influenced by the Subject (the Subjective Side). This is not that my feelings can change the substance of the world, but, for Hegel, Consciousness, which is something that also conceptualizes itself is at one point influenced by the external, can reach out to objects (beings in themself) and retrieve part of that object conceptually (being for us). Also, the Substance in Part is another attempted refutation of Spinoza. But why bring this all up? Because there are many traditions that do not follow Hegel, in fact, some have sprung up against Hegel. There are the early anarchists who rose up (originally named Libertarians, a name that was stolen by right-wing idiots) against Marx because they believed Marx's theories had a certain authoritarianism to them (which will make right-wingers happy because russia russia russia), but there are also more recent leftisms that are not Hegelian. Specifically the work of Gilles Deleuze, Antonio Negri, Michael Hardt, and Rosi Braidotti. Gilles Deleuze wrote his book _Difference and Repetition_ to combat German Idealism, Kant and Hegel, with his concepts of Difference and Repetition, or more accurately Difference in itself and repetition for itself. There are two keys to this: 1) difference in itself is ontological difference which precedes Identity and repetition is a concept that goes against Hegelian Mediation. In my estimate, Hegel's concept and usage of Mediation and Immediacy are more important than his Concept of Dialectic. Furthermore, Antonio Negri, who was a Marxist theorist involved in the Italian Autonomata and Operaismo movements (Autonomy and Workerism) worked from an anti-Hegelian Perspective, specifically a Spinozist Perspective. You can see this from his book _The Savage Anomaly_ which looks at Spinoza's Corpus against Hegelian Dialectics and understands how Spinoza (and Machiavelli and Marx) form a tradition that is politically and legally different from the typical tradition of Hobbes, Rousseau, and Hegel. Specifically, Negri shows how Hegel and many Scholars got Spinoza wrong and how radically Spinoza's political philosophy is and how it is radically different from Hobbes who many philosophers have states Spinoza simply copied from. Beyond this, you have Michael Hardt who has worked with Negri. The most interesting right now is Braidotti who is specifically a NeoSpinozist and follows the tradition of Deleuze and Foucault (Foucault is another anti-Hegelian Leftist). She works in Posthumanisms and you can find many lectures of hers online. Suffice it to say, you claim to be apolitical, but you wrongly label all leftists as Hegelian. Most leftists haven't read Hegel. Many Leftists haven't read Marx. Marx, for a fact, has a different Dialectic. I meant to mention this earlier, but a book people can read on this is _Dance of the Dialectic: Steps in Marx's Method_ by Bertell Ollman. So, I don't think this channel is apolitical. I think your cynical theories are covering up a hidden bias towards the right wing.
'Most leftists haven't read Hegel'. Amen. This isn't even getting into the many different readings of Hegel that includes (alongside those you've already mentioned) the likes of the Pittsburgh School, Lukács, Evald Ilyenkov, etc. etc. And all I'm hearing in Lindsay is an extremely illiterate version of what Popper wrote almost a century ago now - that was even then rightly scorned at.
@@stevenlight5006 matter, not "mater". If " words matter" then it matters that matter is matter and not " mater ". If your statement wasn't a typo then it was kind of ironic, don't you think ? 😉
Marx believed in historical progress. He was an economist by training. His theory has to do with economies run on slavery becoming replaced by a feudal economy that became replaced by a capitalist economy that he thought would logically lead to a socialist and ultimately, a Communist economy. He thought that when the contradictions of any given system became so acute that it would necessitate a complete rearrangement into the next system the process could best be explained by Hegel's formulation of "dialectics". The dynamic would be that a "negative would be positive" in that, solving for the seemingly irresolvable problems of an obsolete system you create a new and improved one !(NOT that "Marxists love negativity" like this obscurantist is attempting to infer !) ""Wokeness" is basically "identity politics" or special pleading on behalf of various "opressed" subgroups that most Marxists argue AGAINST ( ! ) because they put groups in competition with each other that Marxism sees as natural allies ! As a matter of fact , the prevailing opinion on "Woke" folk among modern day Marxists is that they are part of a program of "divide and conquer" on behalf of the "status quo" and constitute an obstacle to progress! "Critical Theory" and "Deconstructionism" likewise not only decidedly have no "broken connection" to Marxism but are actually diametrically opposed to the main thrust of Marxian analysis and throwing that in here just reveals this present pod-cast polemic to be yet another inch- deep dive into the ahistorical emo-driven red-baiting milieu of the Pragers and Petersons on the fat-cat apologist side of the culture war devide ! The more you listen to these things the dumber you get so I'm gonna quit while I'm ahead ! As for the rest of you have fun having your "smugnorance" flattered , your superstitions co-signed and your paranoid delusions amplified to the point where there's a B.L.M.er under every bed and the ominous spectre of Antifa is comin' to GITCHA ! ( Boo ! )
@@codex3048 He seems to have done a pretty good job as his predictive description from such a temporal remove of our imperial self devouring present predicament rings truer and has more utility in suggesting remedies than all the "Chicago Boys" apologetics for predatory rent seeking and von Hayek 's retrograde fantasies combined !
Taken to its absolute fundamentals, dialectic leftism is nothing more than rebellion against reality itself. It is like a parent explaining to a child that 2+2=4 and a child responds with "No, want it to be 2+2=5". Then a parent explains that it's a universal law, that is part of reality itself, that's how it has to be, and a child responds "NO, I HATE IT, I WILL MAKE IT 2+2=5" and spends the rest of his/her life unsuccessfully but stubbornly trying to make "2+2=5". These pathetic attempts take many forms. Using 2.5 and claiming that it is 2, forcefully adding 1 from other sources, claiming that all math should be rethought to align with "2+2=5". In the end, when none of that works, and when the defeat is obvious, an intellectual has two last lies in his sleeve. First: "Reality is subjective, so are mathematical rules, 2+2=5 to me". Second: "Looks like in reality 2+2 can't be 5. Does that mean that a parent was right and 2+2=4? No, if I can't be right, no one else can, math does not exist". That's how it is like.
Any person for whom this form of reasoning is fully descriptive can be reliably depended upon to do their best to rig any democratic election in which they have an interest in the result.
@@justinhart2831 Well, for starters, we have a rationing problem in Healthcare, as we do in everything else. The free-market approach is to ration by price. If you want that difficult procedure, it's gonna cost ya. If you want that easy/simple procedure... no problem. Or, you can go Socialized Medicine. If you want any procedure... get in line and wait. If it's a direly needed procedure, maybe you can get bumped ahead of others. But then the others get angry. But if it's a simple/cheap/easy procedure? Again, no problem. The issue as I see it is incentives. A free-market system incentivizes doing whatever the provider can hor the patient... testing, state of the art procedures, etc. It fosters innovation and creates incentives to providers to work for the health of the patient. New innovation, and increasing success creates the incentive to make things faster, cheaper, better and more widely available. Once again, though, cost to the patient is the burden. With a socialized system, everybody pays constantly, through a portion of some method of taxation, and higher earners share a greater burden, while lower earners carry a lesser burden (typically), ensuring everyone has access to care. The problem is that, since such systems must be rationed, procedures are limited. Trying out new methods, or even asking for additional testing by providers is disincentivized, leading to more overlooked health problems, or late care... sometimes too late. It's a sticky problem, either way. Either way, there's the danger of bad providers, misdiagnoses, and malpractice. In both cases, patients can become frustrated out of seeking care, either because of fear of costs in the decentralized (free market) healthcare system, or from wait-times and bureaucratic hurdles, in the case of centralized (socialized) healthcare. I generally try to take care of myself, watch my weight, my diet, refrain from drinking, drugs, dangerous activities, and get good sleep and exercise, all while hoping for the best, whichever way our U.S. system ends up. Because we are in a see-saw boondoggle, with interests on both sides complicating the shit out of our system.
@@justinhart2831 sorry... I just realized I didn't connect it to the main topic. Western Liberal thinkers will tend to prefer the free market health-care approach, whereas Socialist (neo-marxist/hegelian) thinkers will prefer Socialized healthcare. I think that's where political philosophy most greatly impacts how our society produces a form for Healthcare provision.
Robin DiAngelo - robbing the anglo(saxon) They mock the compassionate as “suffering together”. All we need to continue evolutionary advancement is rule of law under natural law and Christian love, thank you Curt Doolittle!
3:16:50 beginning of an important discussion of Hegel's concept of the primacy of the State over human rights, i.e., rights are something granted by the State, in opposition to the Lockean/Jeffersonian concept of rights *preceding* the State, and existing independent of the State. Leftism is the total rejection of this notion.
This is why the leftist are able to claim anything is a human right _if_ it can be granted by the gvoernmnet. Health care. Education. Housing. Clothing. Jobs? Water? Food? The list will forever go on because the left simultaneously believes that the government should provide everything. Contrast this to the right where human rights are something intangible. Freedom of speech, religion, movement, security, etc. These are things that do not require labour from someone else, but instead, they are something inalienable, something humans are born with and carry with them for their entire lives.
@James Barlow No. Because Genesis means something totally different and you cannot "base" something on this because it's over, forever, because Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of knwoledge. What Rouseau and Hobbes are doing is something different. They imagine a pre-existing Human state and base their Antrophologie on that. And yes "Human Rights" is Mythology i.e. Humans Rights doesn't exist.
Wow, I know a lot about this subject and more, but you have blown my mind on this. Thank you for posting and sharing. Keep sharing, the World needs this.
'Dialectic' as construed today allows for contradictions in arguments-- What a sham dismissal of consistency, logic, and evidence! What an unfair handicap, to ignore your own contradictions!
Karl Marx starved his own kids to death because of his own laziness. That's one of the references we can take to put ourselves into his shoes and think, maybe the reason his made these all up because he was trying so hard to think of excuses for his own failures and misery, those excuses also excuses the fact that he didn't feed his kids, did not bear the responsibilities as a parent, and he delegated the responsibilities to the state as a result, that's the only way he can "escape" from his responsibilities through fiddling through his own mind. We have to make a movie about Marx and show how Marxism was created through personal failures and sins.
Before Al Bundy. Before Al Capone. Before Al Einstein and Al Schweitzer. Before even Al Kabong. There was and, as those brave enough to listen will soon learn, there still is...Al Chemy.
It is interesting the narrator assertively links Hegel to leftism and postmodernism. I am aware of many rightist Hegelians (especially libertarians). Also the term dialectics is more epistimogilocal than a political term. It is unfortunate to see a great thinker politicized. He did not create Marx or Lenin. He left his ideology open to interpretation and both right and left wings tried to own him - ironically.
By biology he means conditioning. Furthermore, the philosophy of socialism seems to be the philosophy of the lowest denominator. That is, unless the lowest among us is uplifted then no one is uplifted. That is why it requires groupthink and uniformity because that is the realization of the philosophy.
Yes, and the philosophy of capitalism is that of the highest denominator. That is, the highest should always be uplifted and who cares about the lowest. That is why it requires no-think.
@@stevemorley7657 that is a false comparison. Capitolism uses incentives (money, goods, reputation) to get others to do an act. No one is forced to do the act. Also what is received from doing the act can be used for whatever purpose you would like. There is no assumptions of morality involved here but simple transactional actions. Socialism assumes every action has moral standing which puts every transactional action into question. Uniformity is a necessity in a socialist state in order for everyone to have common needs. This is a monoculture (I.e. non-multiculturism) .
Thesis: Critical theory is a valuable tool for uncovering imperfections in society. Antithesis: Critical theorists use it tyrannically to dominate and control opposition. Synthesis: Those that require human faith and fealty to systems humanity creates are the true opponents of an enlightened moral progress.
Dialectic started with Plato/Socrates and in the Socratic form is extremely positive in that it aims to reveal the truth. Note that even Hegel pointed out, as did Plato, that dialectic which is the art of identifying contradictions in a persons argument with the primary aim of revealing the truth or the universal. They pointed out that dialectic could be used to essentially win an argument without revealing the truth. The aim simply to win. Hence dialectic could be used for evil. This is why Plato withheld philosophical study until the age of 30
it took me a few days to get through this the first time I listened, back now after nearly a year to try and reabsorb the information. I think Hegels connections to Fascist and Communist ideology should be highlighted more.
“The negation of the negation” was beyond the young Hegelians, and even went over Marx head. In the negation of the negation writings Hegel tells us that any sweeping breakthrough emancipatory revolutionary project will turn into it’s opposite.
@@thenowchurch6419 Left-Hegelianism is essentially neo-Fichteanism. Also he doesnt want to realise that his americanism is Nihilism (which he confusingly describes in over 3 hours). Spinoza, which he mentions at the end, as one philosophy of the "liberal" americans is what Hegel takes. hegel says that his Philosophie is Spinozism he goes even further and says every philosopie is Spinozism. . So that is the whole problem and why America is at the beginning a Nihilistic project. And why the liberals react so strongly to CRT.
@khaːɔskampf I do not need to go anywhere to confirm anything. These topics are my bread and butter. My point is that materialism denies metaphysics and as you said cannot account for consciousness. Thanks for a good analysis of the landscape of Ontology and Philosophy today. Peace.
Who says ‘woke’ anymore, except perhaps my FOX-addicted 77-year-old uncle? While informative in some parts, one gets the feeling that Christian neoliberalism (a paradox, I know) is heavily clouding his reasoning in others.
Does... does the speaker not know that Hegel was a Christian? Where he thought that Christianity was the highest and truest form of religion and therefore based his thought on the salvation one receives in God? That Hegel Repudiates Descartes methodological doubt for a methodology of despair. As Peter Kalkavage describes in his book _The Logic of Desire:_ "We must observe here that consciousness in its universal meaning must not be confused with its individual finite shapes. It is the former that undergoes the transition from one shape to the next. As we saw in our discussion of negation, consciousness, as the concept of itself, is not confined to its finite shapes. It is restless because it constantly senses, or divines, the finitude of these shapes. But an individual shape is not aware of the transition from one shape to another. It cannot leap outside itself. It is true that experience generates a new object, but consciousness is not aware that this has happened. The positive result of suffering (the determinate negation) is implicit for it and explicit only for the phenomenological observer. That is why learning, for consciousness, is a Way of Despair. For it, the result of its experience of every one of its natural shapes is nothing but contradiction and failure-a purely negative dialectic." "Consciousness learns, in other words, by exhausting itself, by experiencing the finitude of its natural shapes and thereby coming to despair of all things natural." (pg. 23 and 24) And as Kalkavage states earlier where he relates Hegel's conception of determinate negation and aufheben to Christianity, "Determinate negation and Aufhebung are prominent in the mysteries of the New Te stament. There is the passage from John I quoted earlier. There is also the hard-to-grasp relation that Jesus has to the law as something fulfilled but also canceled and transcended (Matthew 5:17). And ordinary language, whose waywardness Hegel loves, seems to capture sublation in nay-saying moments like the following: ''Last night's music was beautiful -no, it was sublime!" The "no" here both cancels the previous statement and lifts it to a higher level." (pg. 16) "Gospel of John: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" (12:24)" (pg. 15) What may be problematic is that right wing people don't understand this aspect of Hegel enough and believe in a false Christianity propped up by Oil money and other Right-wing bull.
It seems that anytime some intellectual appears on the scene with broad, abstract ideas, no matter how loose or convoluted, a certain portion of the population will find those ideas and take them up with varied consequences.
Just here to say that I am a believer and practitioner of Hermetic religion and philosophy. I am also a Conservative Capitalist who is completely fed up with this "woke" "victim" cult. Hermetic and neo-plotonic philosophy has nothing to do with this "woke" far leftist faux "anti-racist" neo-marxism. It is about responsibility, attempting to know God (The Good, The All, The Mind of Creation) and the pursuit of self perfection. These are the opposite of the grievances, "victimhood", and oppressor/oppressed ideologies pushed by the "woke" left. ✌🙏🇺🇸
This is one of the best videos i ever seen. I believe in God but i am not religious so i dont go to church etc. I am a Christian but i dont follow all the traditions of the faith but i feel a connection with God and i have a deep faith. I dont know if its the Christian God that i feel this connection with but certainly hope that it is. The God i connect is one who gives me strenght and tells me to be as self reliant as possible, love animals, dont hurt other people and be grateful for all the technology and conforts of the modern world. I dont believe that God is just nature, i think it's the Creator of all things and is responsible for everything that is beautiful, pure and enjoyable in life. I hope to discover more about who the God i believe really is by exploring your channel. Thanks!
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
4 hours might seem long, but once you’ve listened to it you’ll realize it’s actually an incredibly distilled and condensed masterclass. Thank you James.
I think it was Schopenhauer, who suspected that Hegel (ab)used his endless winding Style to hide the emptiness of his thoughts. So James does a great job here.
---
Me - "to completely understand the woke/Marxist(s) agenda, how it operates and its metaphysical basis. Which are shown to be horrid and baseless respectively.
@@comentedonakeyboard Schopenhauer and Hegel had massive beef. They both lectured at the same university... during Schopenhauer's induction (they would test new professors by making them conduct a mock lecture to the entire faculty, then the profressors would pose as students asking questions... trial by fire).
During this induction/test, Hegel asked Schopenhauer an extremely stupid medical question (I think it was medical, don't quote me on this). The question was based on an extremely flawed premise which could be easily pointed out by a teenager. Schopenhauer debunked Hegel's presumption quite easily, the medical professor agreed with Schopenhauer and so Schopenhauer passed the test... (again this detail escapes me, so don't quote me on it.. but its the general jist)
This was the beginning of a long running beef, because 1. Hegel tried to stump Schopenhauer with an embarrasingly stupid question. And 2. the fact that his question was so stupid indicated to Schopenhauer that Hegel was poorly trained in the stem fields. This meant Schopenhauer disliked Hegel both for being disprespected by him, and his lack of knowledge in the sciences... Schopenhauer was a very traditionalist philosopher, and there was a time where extensive knowledge in the sciences was considered a pre-requisite for being a good philosopher... so in short, Schopenhauer did not respect Hegel as a philosopher.
Again, I forget the exact details so don't quote me... But I believe Schopenhauer purposely conducted classes in the same time slots as Hegel (not sure why, perhaps to try and out do him, or maybe to conduct an experiment on how influencial Hegel was)... Inevitably no one attended Schopenhauer's lectures because everyone was so starstruck by Hegel's 'rockstar' status at the time.
There's a good creator who went in to depth about this story... have a look here if you're interested -
I'm not a huge fan of Schopenhauer's pessimistic philosophy, however one thing I can respect is his integrity to the discipline... and most importantly it's a big tell on why everything which followed Hegel has so many logical holes. If you're creating theory and you don't have a core understanding of how the world works... your philosophy is going to yield some pretty crappy results. I definitely believe in Hegel's idea of the dialectic - it's an undeniable truism... however most of his other ideas are pretty trash. Also, his conception of the dialectic is not really that groundbreaking. Many people would have observed it and eventually someone would have articulated it... Hegel just happened to be the one who articulated it first and he did a good job of spreading the concept... It's kinda like the iPhone - the invention was inevitable. Many companys were working on hand held touch phones and many got really close to developing a good working model... Apple just happened to get there first. Any other tech company could have made something as groundbreaking as the iPhone, but as fate went... Apple got there first. The same would have happened for articulating Hegel's dialectic. It was just bound to happen. I really don't think he's particularly special in any way
@@catatafish22 if i remember corectly Kar Popper wrote (somewhere in the Hegel chapter of the open society and its enemys) that Hegel used his political connections to the prussian state to promote his career.
@@comentedonakeyboard that makes sense, because I just rewatched the video. He published a paper claiming it was only physically possible for our universe to hold 7 celestial bodies 🤣… like even for his time that was retarded, the dwarf planet was discovered pretty shortly after.
Cool book, I just googled it. The author indicts Plato, Hegel and Marx for relying on historicism to inform their philosophies… this is the exact definition which Weltgeist uses to define Hegel - ‘more of a historian than a philosopher’. Either his analysis is sharp af, or he was inspired by the book.
Either way, Weltgeist probably has the best philosophical analysis I’ve heard. He summed up BGE, Genealogy and a few other Nietzsche books each in roughly an hour. So concise and easy to understand… I never thought it was possible to make N’s work easy to digest
I majored in black studies in college and read Black Feminist Thought. Was a black feminist. As I listen to you breakdown quotes, I’m searching for them in the book and seeing that in college years ago I’ve highlighted a lot of the quotes you’re reading. I’m like 😲🤯. It’s a trip learning from your videos why this stuff just didnt sound right. Learning the roots. Getting the tea. Thank you so much for these videos!
You state that you "[were] a black feminist." I would be curious to know what the impetus was that led you to move away from that ideology.
The ultimate question for the deconstructionist cultural Hegelians:
Why is THIS ONE white guy the ONLY one who is ultimately mostly correct out of all others?
Without him there’s NO CRT, no Marxism, no Leftism whatsoever past the vague anarchical crudities of Rousseau and Robespierre.
Rousseau is very much the master mould model for the modern ghetto Black and White Trash absent father, by the way.
What good have ANY of these Parasitoids done ANYONE?
You a sucker.
You got taken advantage of.
I can only imagine how many people you have hurt in the last decades. Did you mutilate your son?
Shame on you.
It takes a very strong person to admit to themselves that perhaps they listened and embraced wrong teachings. I have nothing but immense respect for you.
Respect!! Its really hard to notice and admit that you have been lied.
We have to inform people about this stuff
Only Thomas Sowell ever engaged my interest consistently for this amount of time just by talking about ideas. I got the feeling Tom knew how good he was. I don't think James realises how important his voice is or how much he's changing thought out here in the real world.
It seems like Sowell got his glib attitude directly from Friedman. It's almost like he has the secret knowledge that the Anoited has the secret knowledge.. I wonder, being he was a raging marxist during his years under Friedman, if he would joking characterize himself as the synthesis? We are indebted to Sowell's works, they don't get nearly enough exposure.
@@6Sparx9 for a minute I thought you meant John Milton
@@shannonm.townsend1232 Another fine Milton, bit ill fix up the confusion now
@@6Sparx9 The finer, I should say.
@@shannonm.townsend1232 and I too shall say that marble is finer than granite, and let us leave it at that. Yet, it begs the question; to what end?
"If we could only get rid of all the problems, we could have the perfect society"
What if all the problems are people? This is the reality they _always_ come up against.
This is why gulags existed and why their modern form, cancel culture, exists.
Systems predicated upon the perfect citizen cannot function with an imperfect citizenry because they have no built in mechanisms to moderate the impact of the imperfect citizen, unlike systems predicated upon imperfect citizens that inherently moderate the deleterious effects resulting from the imperfection of the citizenry.
Societal systems that presume a perfect citizenry can only purge the imperfect citizen, or become unstable and eventually collapse, because they lack the means to mitigate the impact of imperfect citizens upon society.
Christians (at least the mainstream Christians, not Oneida-type Christians) have been trying to argue this for many years. We will never have utopia nor a workers' paradise because the people who make up those societies are all sinners. The problem is our human nature. When all the workers form their own paradise, that paradise will last about 30 minutes. Then it will cease to be paradise because our sin (which Christians believe we all inherit) will begin to manifest.
See Thomas sowell “a conflict of visions”
Hegel was a madman. He might say that a problem arises when floods kill humans. Therefore, humans should become more like floods in order to eliminate the contradictions that result in death.
@@ericb2103 Especially since the leadership is composed of the same imperfect citizens.
0:40 Tweeting about Hegel gets you in trouble
2:23. Reading from Critical Race Theory: An Introduction
4:30. James’ goal: to teach you the Dialectic
10:00 Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis
11:45 Marcuse’s views on negative thinking
17:00 Young Hegelians
24:00 Engels: Hegel wasn’t ready for prime time
29:30 Marx’s dialectic
33:00 Hegel’s contribution to the dialectic
38:00 Failures of Marxism in the 20th century
42:09 The Woke incarnation of the dialectic
49:10 Marcuse’ take on the dialectic
57:20 Marcuse’s take on democracy
1:01:05 Post-Hegelianism / Post-Marxism
1:08:18 Patricia Hill Collins’ Black Feminist Thought
1:17:28 bell hooks’ Feminist Theory
1:21:50 Kim Crenshaw’s Seeing Race Again
1:24:40 Critical Turn in Education
1:27:50 Allison Bailey’s Tracking Privilege, Preserving Pushback
1:31:38 Henry Giroux’s teaching agenda
1:33:06 A few more points
1:34:15 structural determinism
1:37:00 Intersectional Dialectic
1:42:00 Aufhaben, the tool
1:46:10 Hermetic Alchemy
1:49:00 Alchemy with Language
1:52:05 Aufhaben der Kultur, Lukacs
2:01:30 Theosophy
2:09:00 A folk religion for Germany
2:13:05 marxists.org metaphysics of ideas
2:23:00 Hegel’s Trinities
2:31:25 Hegel’s God
2:40:30 Progressive Alchemy
2:44:16 Marcuse’s Eugenics
2:51:20 Robin DiAngelo’s Critical Whiteness
2:54:38 Marcuse’s critical theory
2:58:10 Men of Action and history
3:04:00 Verstehen and Vernunft
3:09:09 Hegel(ideas) -> Marx(state) -> Neo Marxists(culture)
3:14:50 Consequences of Hegel
3:18:10 Hegel vs Locke/Jefferson
3:23:15 Hegelianism and psychopaths
3:27:03 Interfaith movement
3:30:38 Leftists, Liberals and Conservatives
3:33:03 Conservative God(is) vs. Leftist God(becomes)
3:36:00 Practical advice: Avoid the dialectic
3:41:40 The dialectic’s stated goal (George Soros)
3:45:09 Wrap-up
Thanks!
Thank you
looks a little OCD
@@KRDecker You're welcome
@@markkaravan4245 not you; Lindsay's OCD
James, I am an Environmental Studies student and we are constantly provided with theories that do not explain the underlying theories. It is expected that the foundation should be accepted even when I provide evidence that rejects the hypothesis. This vlog has really helped me to understand the thinking that is being forced on me. Thank you! I called a leftist friend of mine on his dialectic thinking and his response was "now that you know the secret knowledge I hope you will use it for good". You have hit the nail on the head and removed the wool from my eyes.
@robgreene9615
I think the dialectic is not that important.
The main principle: Mind over matter.
"I know the Truth and reality should bend to that."
Dialectic is basically just a pseudo-logical confusion tactic to move things in the direction you want.
A is the status quo.
B is some made up reason the status quo is bad/incomplete/imperfect.
C is my suggestion for fixing the world.
Then I say A,B => C.
It looks like a logical chain. But it really is just free association. It's a bit confusing to talk about it too much because its intent is to confuse.
That's why "the Dialectic" has no fixed direction. It is just a pseudo-logic tool for scamming gullible people.
So forget about the dialectic. Focus on the lack of REAL evidence for the benefit of societal experiments and power grabs.
Also, concerning pseudo-logic, there was a really good article on James' Website called "Psychopathy and the origins of Totalitarism". Check it out!
Also, could you give some details about what your friend said and what theories you are pressured to accept? I'm interested!
OP I think you missed an important part of the HegDial framework - 54:45 "You can't understand the particulars without understanding the whole"
@@spambot_gpt7 Speaking of pseudlo-logic.
@@spambot_gpt7yeah but their feelings don't care about your facts, so we need another answer. May I suggest putting them in situations to be eaten by their own? Driving down the zombie hoard by piecemeal?
@@FlashArc Well, the real antidote is the one thing they fear most:
Any kind of standards. Intellectual. Moral. Behavioral.
If they eat themselves, they are still in the initiative.
Instead, we have to retake the institutions and enforce a meritocracy that sidelines them completely.
This is more comprehensive than my entire grad school philosophy class. And much less expensive. Keep up the good work.
@Michael Fox We read Sophie's world. I had a major in engineering, and it was a blow-off credit. I love applied philosophy.
@@mfciaccioWhich engineering?
@@historyandhorseplaying7374 Chemical. I work in A.I. at a Pharma company.
@@mfciaccio Very cool, that’s an interesting field. I was in aerospace e, I liked things that fly. And blow other things up during the course of said flight.
Agreed. Astoundin
In communistic Poland people were painting anti Marxist slogans on the walls, authorities were painting them over and someone was painting picture of a gnome on top. Finally they caught the gnome painter and asked him why. He responded: aniticommie slogan is thesis, you painting it over anithesis and a gnome on top - synthesis.
J
Hahaha legend 😂
Gnomsticism
That’s awesome!
Lol!
I'm only moderately brainy and I couldn't really handle this stuff when I was supposed to be doing it at university; I just couldn't get that first corner lifted so that I could see what was under it. But listening to this is manageable, so I'm going to plug my head into it for a few nights and I have much hope for results. I really do thank God for the people like you who give the internet such a good reason to exist. Bless you.
Very likely because the professors presented the information in such an academic, abstruse way that any normal young person was bored immediately.
I often wonder how many of these people genuinely believe in what they're writing or whether they're just intellectually masturbating. If only they'd applied their minds to actually creating something useful instead of a destructive religion they may have improved lives across the globe rather than creating millions of miserable, resentful,angry people whose only goal in life is destroying things. It's almost as if they never expected to be taken seriously but were just theorising because they felt actual work was beneath them.
Please don’t listen to this bullshit. It’s literally a 4 hour long 10 minute video about why woke sucks which is such a baby level analysis
@@eurodelanoThey want you to fall asleep so the hypnosis works better.
I really hope James can get on Jordan Peterson's podcast so he can share his insights to a wider audience in a relatively digestible manner because we need as many people to understand what's going on as possible.
There was an interview with Peterson conducted by Lindsay Pluckrose and Bhogossian a couple of years ago. Google it.
@@shlomorabenovets4709 yeah I've seen it, but present day James has a lot more depth to his insights as he has clearly been doing more research on the subject. I want a more current perspective from both of them.
@@TelekineticCheez yeah james is almost a totally different guy.
TelekineticCheez I had the same thought that Peterson is uniquely equipped to add more. I hope they team up to reverse engineer this mess of woketopian lunacy.
Peterson is your people's god, isn't he?
This explains why the "burn it down" rhetoric is never followed with what comes next. The Utopia will just organically and magically emerge!
That is because, behind such rhetoric is nothing. Nothing begets nothing. Neither Hegal or Marx created anything. Both dealt in ideas and had their disciples were not all too human and wanted the good life without work; the evil that those disciples produced with over 100 million people murdered could never would have happened.
Xianity/Leftism are two sides of the same maya mon.key coin.
You confess to your own lack of grounding in informed reality.
@@jnagarya519 you sound like 50 cent army tool
Without 'racism' or class difference you have utopia by definition. I am sure we will all then be saints.
This was a masterclass. Maybe I'll give it several more listens in the future to let it sink in.
Better to read Hegel yourself. That way you might be able to see how badly James mangled him. Marx's interpretation of Hegel was based on a misunderstanding of his work. The irony of James's video is that he misunderstands Hegel too. Hegel was writing about human behavior not politics.
A LOT of sinking in.
@@fastinbulvis2223Well then apparently a whole bunch of influential thinkers "misunderstood" Hegel.
And applied his thought process to society and history at large.
So maybe it was an extrapolation or wider application of his system. And not a "misunderstanding ".
Guess you're gonna need to call Karl up in his grave to make sure😂😝
@@rheinhartsilvento2576 wrote: "Well then aparently a whole bunch of influential thinkers "misunderstood" Hegel."
Actually, though I know you're joking and being sarcastic, that's exactly right.
It was starting around the 1960's that a number of important (though not all were necessarily well known) thinker-writers began to have an uneasy feeling that Hegel was saying a lot more then was normally thought about him.
For example, A.J Ayer, the great exemplar of logical positivism was aske if he still stood by everything he wrote in Language, Truth, and Logic, and he said, "No. But then, I hadn't read Hegel when I wrote it." Not an exact quote, but close.
Another example was the great cultural historian and behaviorist Morse Peckham, who completely changed the direction of his work after his re-reading of Hegel.
For me, it's obvious that he's the great philosopher of Cultural Transcendence. That's what his work is all about. It's why he's more relevant and useful now then ever, and why James Lindsay is wrong about him.
@@fastinbulvis2223 This is precisely the problem. Folks like you always think they have the correct interpretation, and everyone else must have gotten it wrong. The arrogance alone makes you completely unlistenable. Frankly James' lecture predicts your exact behavior.
And professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Indeed
Calling Evil Good and so forth.
Amen
What make me laugh is a bunch of black radical feminists have a philosophy tracing back to some white German male who would probably hold them in complete contempt.
@@chrishoff402 Marx and Engels were horribly racist and many of their infamous commie follower / revolutionaries over the years have been too (e.g. Che Vegara). Of course this is ignored by these radicals. But why would we be surprised? Objective truth means nothing to them. Just the false veneer / pretense of truth to get their claws into power. The deceived, deceiving the deceived.
3:39:55 "You can't create through a negation process. Aufhaben doesn't "make." Critical Theory doesn't build. Critical Theory doesn't understand -- it has no obligation to understand. It only has obligation to aufhaben der kultur. It only has obligation to tear down."
And you believed it
@@shannonm.townsend1232 Believed what?
aufheben
@@shannonm.townsend1232 I do.
After reviewing some dozen or more of these lectures in their entirety, I am convinced that this lecture is your finest one. At least of those I sampled this far. It was my first and I had to listen carefully to it twice. It was rough going, but as an introduction to the whole thing, there is no finer explanation. This is the video I give to everybody I can. I tell them the scales will fall from their eyes and they will never see anything happening in their lives in the same way. Their entire life will need to be reappraised. Simply mind-blowing. Thank you.
I’m only twenty-five minutes in, but it’s so incredibly good already.
I think especially he does a great job showing how the dialectic paradigm could be such a constructive tool for society if you have competent participants working in good faith.
It really helps one understand the chimp with a machine gun aspect.
Jesus: "Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own?"
A typical carpenter's joke. If JC was a pastry cook it would have been a pie in your eye.
But what does that mean to you !?
@@AuntAlnico4 It means I can have fun. If it was a pig it would be a stye in the eye or the apple of the teacher's eye is a pupil.
@@VaughanMcCue Yes the subject matter of the parables are relative to his career but it doesn't take away from the deeper meaning within the parable.
@@LlibertarianGalt Like The Road Runner will always be the bane of Willy Coyote's life. We can invent meaning from anything that suits our predisposition. The coyote has unlimited access to Acme explosives, rockets, cranes, and band-aids, all to no avail. Tom and Jerry, Jesus and devils, Batman and Robbin; the list of fiction is endless. Thanks for your interest and contribution to the comedy hour.
I knew about 60% of this already. But i've never seen anyone put the whole thing together like this. Amazing work.
Straight up sophistry. These people are high verbal IQ sociopathic sophists. All of it falls apart with the slightest bit of critique. They only win the argument if they can tie you up in bs semantic knots. Thats why they never argue the points unless they know theyre arguing with somebody who is clearly going to buckle. The risk/reward is skewed. All it takes is one moderately knowledgeable person to introduce any of several questions and it totally dismantles their narrative for everyone listening forever. Their best case scenario is basically neutral. They *need* power to bend others to their whims.
@@za5820 this made me realize how good these activists are at activism
their ideas are trash
everything they touch turns to trash and collapses, so they have no long term effectiveness
yet somehow they've sold their "Midas of Trash" touch to all these high profile institutions, corporations, bureaucracies --- got to admire that in a warped way
I knew about 90% of this already. But to the extent of having a 2,000 piece jigsaw puzzle on the dining room table with just the edges two thirds done. This is a case of knowing all the individual pieces is not enough. It is putting it together the way James did that helps us understand just how dangerous and misguided it is.
@@chrisc7265 Midas of Trash is nioce,.
@Chris C you’re exactly right. They have big money behind them. Capitalist money at that, the only time you ever see their bullshit ideas semi work, is when they’re riding on the back of capitalism lol.
I highly recommend any work by Prof. Anthony Sutton, especially “why bankers live socialism” (I believe that’s what it’s called). He also points out how people in high places funded national socialism, American socialism (the welfare state under FDR) and Bolshevik socialism (communist Russia).
I'm rapidly becoming a HUGE fan of your work. This is solid. It is post-graduate level Marxism deconstruction that is absolutely needed.
Just because it’s brain numbingly long long winded doesn’t mean it’s post grad level.
Hegel was not a Marxist.
@casteretpollux No one said he was- James said Marx was a Hegelian
@@casteretpollux But Lincoln was a Marxist. Leftism makes the lights come on in America. Liberty is Leftist. I like leftism and I abhor the fascist stupidity we swim through.
No wonder they need endless dissertations to prevent people from reaching this level of clarity.
Precisely, lies upon lies, obfuscation, obtuseness, duplicitous rhetoric so as to never face the facts of the cracked foundation it all rests on.
“My dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast as that.”
- The Queen of Hearts, Alice in Wonderland
Because this guy is a hack? The goal of history is the consciousness of freedom fully expressed as substantial subjectivity in the form of a Protestant state. God Hegel was a real lunatic, he actually believed real dangerous ideas like Christianity and science were signs of advanced social organization.
@@michaelsieger9133 …what?
@@keblee2443 the Lutheran State, whose main mode of intellectual inquiry is natural science represents in a concrete form the historical Telos. That is the conclusion of Hegel’s philosophical history. This apologetic tendency, which refused to cordon off a world of Philosophical Ideality constituted merely of vain insubstantial Platonic postulates and rather reconcile reason with existential reality, directly precipitated the subsequent appropriation of his work for reactionary purposes. Maybe actually read Hegel. He’s a brilliant historian and philosopher and a Titan of Western Culture.
Equality is thesis (Bait), Equity is the antithesis, (Switch), and cultural strife is the synthesis that acts as a mechanism of controlling the populace. The establishment know this as a tactical propaganda subversion formula. In sales presentations you have deficit, solution and call to action.
Hence the hegal dialect 😉
aunt jenifer intelligence whistle blowers all warned when top officials like Biden and Harris start trying to sell, “Equity,” to the working class, the people need to start to speaking up!
That’s why the establishment, including billionaires, can promote wokeism without fear of their own position being toppled. Wokeism is just a way of achieving power, not using it. If you want to use an idea to your benefit, just co-opt it and bend its adherents to your will. They will march off a cliff like lemmings if you tell them what they want to hear. The dialectic is a slippery fish.
January’s Son quite some great insight. You’ve put effort into your life. Thank you for sharing!
January’s Son “wokeism is just a cheap way of achieving power, not actually using power! It’s just co-opting and bending adherents to the will of top ruling class war criminals who are calling the shots because they were trusted to appropriate taxpayer secured slush funds.”
*Dr. Lindsay. From a tyrannized Iran. I have used my everything to fight this socialist Islamic-masked regime. I pray for you every day.*
*God bless you for the books you've written. For the material you prepare every day. Long live liberty.*
Lucid, well-argued, well thought through and utterly compelling - thank you Mr Lindsay
Hmmm, I didn’t get that at all.
I noticed Peterson has been reposting some of your stuff on Twitter, if he watches this you have to talk
@Michael Fox oh man that would be wild
We need a 4h dissertation by James on the JBP show... with Peterson quietly taking notes ;)
Has he really? This gives me hope. I've kept my eyes peeled for JP to sync with JL for months now, but feel like JP's somehow avoided Lindsay. Not sure why. They need to talk, weekly.
@@cecilcharlesofficial We know what they would conclude. Then what? Sorry, just me wrestling with my negative emotions.
@@RupertMcGruber lol. Ill lay $20 on the under
I've listened to this at least 6 times. it's absolutely excellent work.
Yeah but it's the 7th listening where you truly benefit from this reading, imo
This will be my 3rd time listening.
@@tamara6771 it really is the operating system of the left. after this, i would recommend his marcuse series. it's excellent.
@@christopherzen8665 I have listened to every single episode from the start, more than once. 😘
@@tamara6771 all of the signs were right in front of our faces in the 90s. i mean...idk if you're old enough to remember, but it's odd...lookin' back on those days.
I listened to this twice. Also started listening to a podcast on the history of philosophy. Pretty interesting. Thanks, James!
Im figuring at LEAST 3 times...
The history of mining is equally good.
James. Mr. Lindsay, I’m so impressed by your drive to break through the cynical morass of wokeness all the way to its pure Hegelian essence that, I, a man of meager means, will donate to your work and hope this inspires other “working class intellectuals” to do the same!!!
Too bad you can't connect wokeness to Hegel in any real sense, since they exist in different centuries, etc. The only reason to attempt such a dishonest association, would be to fear-monger or line someone's pockets.(Like yours, James).
Is it an honest reading of Hegel though? I think you should be warry of representations of complicated systems of thought (such as Hegel's) when the primary aim is to make a political statement (an attack of certain contemporary 'leftist' phenomena - which in itself is a huge generalization/antagonization). I'm sorry, I have not found the time to sit through all 4 hours of this lecture, but from the comments it seems like Lindsay is doing to Hegel what Peterson is doing to Foucault.
Wait a second, I was doing some research on Lindsay's position on Hegel and found this quote: "Black lives matter" is a Hegelian/Neo-Marxist dialectic meant to negate "all lives matter," i.e., "all men are created equal." The synthesis (their goal) is "some (politically Black) lives matter more than others (and there's an intersectional hierarchy of mattering)".
Is this really something that Lindsay said? If he said that, he's probably taking the piss, right?
Also, "wokeness" is more of a corporate strategy to pacify/ameliorate a threat to the existing superstructure, in as cosmetic a way as possible, than some powerful grass-roots revolution. IMO. Some want to present "wokeness" as top-down indoctrination by a powerful cabal. Because reasons.
@@arthurhiroa4238 quote from where
One of the greatest meditations on these subjects I've stumbled upon on UA-cam, thank you so much New Discourses.
I deeply appreciate that you took the time to make this!
James gives a helpful description of the concept of “historicism” here and in his previous “communism doesn’t know how” podcast. It’s really helping me understand Karl Popper’s book “the open society and its enemies” where he launches right into the term in the very first chapter. Thanks James 👍🏻
Yes, this Is very good stuff here. 👏. Bravo. The everyday people need to understand Hegelian Dialect more! Builds up to Post Modernism. Makes Peterson seem like a pre cursor to this knowledge.
Today's 'new' Marxists always claim that true communism has never been achieved. Tired of their worn out argument I've been hearing across continents and decades. Their delusion and stupidity reveals the indoctrination their leaders have subjected them to.
Leftoids TODAY are SICKER than it appears on the surface. The sheeple of Latter Day Woke and their government high priests, Schumer, Pelosi, Schift, Nadler, Sanders, Swallowsnot, the CIA, et al are Satan's new Leninists and Nazis!
Thanks for taking your time on this. This is quite clearly one of the best resources on the dialetics that exists on the internet.
Couldn't believe I listened your entire rant, and enjoyed every bit of it. Unbelievably I think I'll re-listen (not replay, that'll be a wrong word) sometime soon.
Just have to comment again: Lindsay is fantastic. Listened to this twice now and while I've been following Stephen Hicks since the 00's the color and detail James is adding is an accessible asset to our understanding of the leftist movement. When people ask questions that reference Lindsay's efforts, it means he's having an impact.
Everyone reading this needs to subscribe to this account, btw. ^^
You've heard of Elf on a Shelf
Get ready for: Hegel on a Bagel.
Marx on a muffin
Hegel likes to put his finger In his navel .
Schopenhauer discourse hour
Woke on wheels!
I was thinking of that classic AC/DC song, "Hegel's Bagels."
This goes even deeper than operating system. The Hegelian Dialectic is more like the kernel of Leftism and each iteration (Marxian, feminism, woke, etc.) Are like different operating systems made using the same kernel. Definitely an eye opening video!
good analogy
Fascism is also a Hegelian principal, but you can't exactly say it's the dialectical progression of history. What you can say is that the Young Hegelians turned into the socialists, but the Old Hegelians, who saw Prussia as the perfect state, turned into Fascists, who tried to create the perfect state in the now with Actual Idealism.
@@ganjaericco Hence why Adolf's main target to deride and differentiate from were the Lenin-Marxists/communists - they were directly competing for the same supporters and the same goal of utopia
@@6Sparx9
I call BS. The fascists in Germany were largely rooted in the urban petty bourgeoisie, protestant clerks and students and catholic peasants. Some workers joined but we're the minority. The Communists dominated the workers and jobless. It was an enormous difference between them. Also the Communists resisted the fascists the most.
@@mortalkomment8028 The SA during the height of its membership, before it was superceded by the SS had a phrase regularly used amongst the rank and file called 'Beefsteaks', which was used to describe the enormous number of communists, especially in the nothern provinces, who joined the SA. ...Most likely due to the appeal of persons such as Geoege Strasser. They called them beefsteaks and joked they were brown on the outside, but red on the inside. Large numbers of these communists rallied behind the SA from the splintering of the SPD and USPD, as well as the Freikorps that was used by the SPD against the USPD to supress the Spartacus League during the German Revolution which included a failed communist revolution and resulted in the formation of the Weimar Republic. Nobody was happy with the turn of events and the SA lapped up all the disgruntled communists despite their agression toward the ultra-extreme groups like the USPD and later KPD.
The SA and party it was attached to made a lot of concessions for establishing and promoting socialist programs once in power, some of which they later went back on and some they followed through with but they were popular across the board. Facism is rooted in Marxism anyway, its no supprise there is immense overlap in their worldview and goals.
1:47:48 "Critical race theory can be thought of as race gnosticism." Brilliant! In fact, we should start calling it "race gnosticism" on a regular basis.
Voddie Baucham is a Christian preacher who has been using the term 'ethnic gnosticism' to communicate a similar idea. His titular sermon is here: ua-cam.com/video/Ip3nV6S_fYU/v-deo.html
Andrew B
I would like to know your understanding of crt and how you have any credentials to criticize its validity?
Love it. I'm on board w/ race gnosticism. Let it fly, soldiers.
@@mikeoveli1028
It's an ideology pent in Hell, how's that for understanding? Seriously, fuck your talk of credentials, it's all subversive utopian nonsense.
@@Xbalanque84
At least we know that you have no understanding.
4 hours! Well, I definitely owe him money for all the content I value. I'm signing up right now.
Edit: ...signing up for Locals...Done.
Worth 10,000X if we save the country from these jokers.
Anyone who hasn't should read Max Stirner. He was friends with all of the Young Hegalians, and his two notable works (The Unique and its Own, and Stirner's Critics) both lay out quite succinctly that the Dialectic is just a rationalist version of religion (He calls them "pious atheists"). Basically he explains their pursuit of dismantling religion through philosophy, they, accidentally or otherwise, have created what is essentially a secular copy of the church with their dogmas derived from, and faith in the perfection of the dialectic, rather than God.
If you hate your boss and capitalism enough it will magically bring about a utopia. -Inane trolling that only an idiot would take seriously. It isn't so much a religion as active nihilism.
Absolutely. And that's why they are miserable and no fun to be around.
Oh no, it's certainly not nihilism. It's pure greed, power-lust, and envy.
There are definitely heavy nihilistic elements to it.
Holy fuck. That makes a lot of sense.
Probably it's most religious element is how fervently its adherents cling to it. They certainly behave that way.
Perfect from beginning to end Dr. Lindsay. Kudos.
Dude. I've only gotten to the 2 hour 30 mark, but I've been listening to this for the past 4 weeks and the actual listening time is much greater. It has provided a tremendous amount of insight and pointers for further study.
Aaghh! 'Dude'!
The sad thing about philosophy is it is not respected in politics unless it’s used to gain power and money
Very good point
If you or your parents just got gulaged by communists or fascists, you definitely respect the power of philosophy, riches or not.....
49:22 Marcuse's "One-Dimensional Man" did not sell 300,000+ copies in its first year. No chance. There are only 20 copies (hardcover and paperback) available of the 1964 printings available for sale currently on ABE Books. Such a low availability suggests sales about 99.5% reduced from 300,000.
I've listened to this almost every night for the past two weeks in disbelief in most part. It all feels so surreal, so fiction somehow.
It sounds like they (Hegel, Engels, Marx, etc.) wanted to take the diffuse and dynamic expertise (amongst autonomous individuals) and make it very static and centralized amongst a select few. The philosopher kings. They must have been terrified of spontaneous order or maybe they didn’t see the wonder and efficiency that is natural selection.
This is not neccessarily true. Hegel believed that "philosophy also arrives on the scene too late." It is only the world-historical figures, such as Plato, Socrates, Hitler, Napoleon, Martin Luther, etc. which are indicators of world-spirit acting in a cataclysmic way. So, to Hegel, philosophers are not ruling technocrats, the way that leftists would desire themselves to be under a Marxist paradigm. Rather, they are more like translators of history, rendered logically. They identify spirit.
This comparison is essentially the same dumb one that Popper made more than half-a-century ago.
Actually marx is one of the least deterministic philosophers. "The educators need to be educated." is perhaps the best example if this. He didn't believe that roles should be prescribed but rather he advocated for a system that caters for each according to his own need (in similar principle to that used by in families of the bourgeoisie). This individualistic element is often lost in interpretations of his work.
When I read spontaneous I had to think of Epicurus. Because of the joyful aspect of spontaneity. Did philosophers of that school ever criticize their materialist broth... err stepmothers from hell?
Lindsay is misrepresenting. Part of where we get this distinction between right and left comes from different interpretations of hegel. Hegel had a autocratic side but he thought liberal capitalism was the ultimate culmination of human history.
its astounding how educational this is, and its entirely free. i think ive found a gold nugget here.
In a sea of lead, gold shines through 😂
James, your voice is so important
His voice and inflection is perfect to express the ideas he does at such length.
👍🇦🇺
Just incredible! Literally the narrative has NOT changed is literally Satan’s words to Eve, “....is that really what God said?”
Exactly
Yup. The Adversary.
Wow- great point
Would we still be in the garden without the help of snek?
Surely, YHWH is infalliable right? Otherwise he couldn't be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and perfect.
So, logically Genesis is flawed OR a deliberate plan by God to gift man free will by presenting a simple rule and giving man the freedom to break it if he so chooses. The other animals in the garden don't even get the option to eat from the tree of knowledge. God deliberately tells Adam about the tree, and had he not Adam might never have eaten from its fruits as there were plenty of other trees. Also, the tree is in the garden. If you don't want to risk accidental self knowledge fruits from being eaten why plant it in the garden where it could be accidentally eaten. What if a fallow deer eats one of the apples that falls from the tree of knowledge at the end of the fruiting season?
Maybe God put snek in the tree (he did create everything so that includes snek) so that Adam would get tempted. Eve being blamed is just the start of the patriarchy so those Jews who conspired to write the Torah could repress women. All written religions locate men as authority figures, when prior spiritual schemes tended to elevate women and goddesses in a pantheon or animistic scheme.
Why is Christianity not seen as a deeper conspiracy than cultural Marxism?
The Roman Catholic Church is just a way to subvert and exploit the message of an evangelical baptist who advocated not funding Synagogues when lessons could be taught in the field on why it was nice to be nice to each other and help the sick and needy and homeless with direct action rather than money donated to an institution most of which is then spent on making the institution look more awesome. Did Jesus talk of original sin and the punishment of eternal Hell then raise funds for a Sistine Chapel through the sale of plenary indulgences to cancel out an invented sin to avoid an invented Hell? I thought Jesus talked about loving your neighbor as you love yourself, and revering God.
I am not even convinced he was resurrected. It seems to be superfluous to his main message. Jesus is basically Jordan Peterson cleaning your room and helping society and yourself by taking on responsibility, all this "believe in the Passion and ye will be saved" is bullshit expedience to trick the rich into donating to the church on their death beds out of fear they need to save their souls that they have been brainwashed into thinking they have and will be punished hereafter. Catholicism and the confessional are just loopholes. Religious Mania and potentially heretical hallucinations turned into canonical miracles by the Vatican bureaucracy. Celibacy but anal sex with altar boys as it doesn't count? Ratzinger and the Nazis. Pius and the Crusades. Francis seems okay, I guess but they took a risk having someone not yet dead as Pope as he could say the wrong thing.
Biden is basically the DNC's pope. A useless brain addled puppet cowed by a history of racism and sexual abuse to serve the BLM and MeToo agendas. He hasn't read a single one of the Executive Orders that Kamala wrote for him to sign. People on the right think Kamala is a joke, and they are in for a huge surprise. The Joker laugh masks a Joker schemer. Obama clearly wanted Kamala to be 46th and Tulsi embarrasing Kamala meant a rapid change of plans and after a few quick phone calls and promises to Sanders to do some of his socialist manifesto if he betrayed his grassroots berniebros and a job for Mayor Pete he can't easily fuck up and the semblance of a Democratic Primary by running Joe against Liz and Joe doesn't pick Liz, or Tulsi, or Stacey, but Kamala who had dropped out.
Wake up. It was Kamala all along, Biden was just a blip. He is doing Obama's dirty work because Constitutional Scholar Obama knows he can't have three terms to push his globalist socialist agenda and economic reset. Wall St. is happy as they think they can profit off the Chinese market being brought slightly right towards a median socialist world government. That is why Fauci had to create a bioweapon to assassinate Trump's economy, and force him out of office. How often do US Presidents get reelected when their first term yields a strong economy? COVID had to come along to fuck up the US so they could displace Trump, as a capitalist nation state and Chinese tariffs was against the globalist socialist harmonisation programme that would get them their one world government. The Big Pharma cabal got Fauci to REEE about J&J's single dose vax, unnecessarily, as the convenience of one jab undercut the sale of their double jabs. Big Tech suppressed this Lab story (and is suppressing the Chinese dox on assessing coronaviruses as potential bioweapons now, so expect the whole truth to take another year to surface through FOI), then the Hunter laptop thing that the FBI had during the Primaries which should have kept Joe from running, was suppressed at the behest of the NSA to ensure BHO got his Vice in temporarily, do some dirty work, then use the 25th amendment to chuck Joe out and swap for his original, derailed, pick. Then expect Kamala to blame Joe for the bad border policy, complete the wall and stop catch and release. She will go all Law & Order on Latinos. Trans Rights Activists and BLM will have their head in a spin when she drops the facade. Ben Shapiro underestimates her competence. Obama wouldn't have picked her for his old job if he couldn't rely on her. We may see AOC as her Vice, as AOC basically sets the agenda of the extreme progressive left. Techically, from a certain point of view AOC is President right now. LOL.
So, conspiracies all around, this dialectic nonsense is just something to undermine universities and thereby journalism courses to create a compliant Fourth Estate. 9/11 -> Patriot Act. 1/6 -> Pelosi killed Ashli. It is all the same circus, whether Republican or Democrat. The deep state runs America. The anomaly was PoMo Trump trolling his way into office in a way the media could not deflect. Trump isn't Deep State, and was once Dem and friendly with the Clintons when in New York, then considering running as an Independent, until Perot showed how lame that looked, so he pulled a Tony Blair and turned the existing Republican party into a populist Constitutional Conservative America First party, pandering at first to the military industrial complex (cause you have to otherwise you get JFK'ed) and then feeling ethically guilty about drones and got rid of Bolton and pushed for peace in the Middle East, whilst not starting any new wars. Hippies like Eric Weinstein should vote Trump, but they are too traumatised by the Shoah to risk electing someone who all media and social media describe as worse than Hitler. Had the first false impeachment not failed we would not have had this pandemic. Trump will probably get assassinated by Obama if he runs in 2024. The best 5D chess move he can make is appear to be running until the last minute then support a DeSantis Noem ticket and speak at their rallies behind green glass to draw crowds. People want the show, but don't need the man, and Kristi's CPAC speech almost makes her look more Trump than Trump. South Dakota never had a lockdown. Florida came out of its lockdown early yet protected its elderly, it banned CRT, and inspired ex-Cuban refugees to support Republican capitalism. The pendulum will swing back to constitutional conservatism and providing they don't make Abortion an issue, but instead run on gun rights / free speech / trade tariffs, the border/immigration won't even need to be an issue as Harris will have resolved it Trumpstyle by 2024 in order to try to get elected. The economy won't be too bad either as 2022 will stop the money printer going brrrr. Bitcoin will crash and then Gold will surge.
Everything is going back to normal. Even the movies will stop being woke in about eighteen months time. You'll see....
@@____uncompetative I grew up christian but love studying all the philosophies and belief systems of humanity. I also love genetic genealogy and the field of psychology and psychiatry as ways to see how we organize the traits of humanity using all the knowledge of the brain and the past. I'm a 40 year old woman- my conclusion is that we currently exist in a realm with others who have disconnected from our creator, God, light....etc. The beauty we experience is a memory of where our souls have been and through stories (bible etc.) we've tried to reconcile where we are and where we've been. I take the bible as a metaphor. The snake and garden "ground" us in the realm. This evil, dark realm full of death and destruction - yin and yang- no real progress of escaping the bad. Knowledge is only applicable to this earthly realm so its of no use though we, as evil beings, see it as the greatest achievement. Still being tricked that to "know" actually means something when to FEEL and submit to that little corner of our being that remembers love, light and like all of humanity, considers we came from somewhere else. This is satan's world. We are all here for a reason. I believe we can escape through faith which reconnects us to the light-- if not, your soul probably circles back time and time again-- here and maybe even in other dark realms. I think the reconnecting is what we see as "heaven" and to put it plainly, I don't believe our consciousness (part of the soul) is fully severed when we pass. I think IF YOU BELIEVE in reconnecting it will go on. IF YOU DON"T believe in anything you maybe be relegated to darkness or cease to move on- very low awareness- meaningless- IF YOU AREN"T SURE you come back here where the memories exist but the less you believe the further you get from the memories. (love, light, positive emotion). This wraps all the belief systems together along with science. Your brain will see what you choose it to see-- or "free will" but evil earthlings have used it as a behavior rather than a belief.
Was steaming some table clothes for over 2 hrs..
Thank you for the insightful understanding and for helping me make good use of my ears for a mundane task 😀.
Look forward to finishing tomorrow.
And re-listening for taking proper notes 📝
Finished at work this evening.. CMHC uni studies in the day... and night work for 2 hrs ...
Sir, I can't thank you enough for this deep dive into Hegelian Philosophy. As a reformed Christian, this has been immensely educational for me. God bless you!
You should check out the Hegelian Right (Christian application of Hegel to Theology). This video is full of the author's bias, Hegel was a neutral author that inspired Christian Theology.
@@blackspiralstorytelling4402 could you link some sources?
@@blackspiralstorytelling4402 Half of it was literally reading from the author. lol
Me:played drinking game
Rules: Take shot every time u hear dialectic
Me later: hey I'm pretty drunk...
Only 3 hours to go!!!
Take a shot, then water, then a shot mixed with water.
You're the most underrated content creator in the political domain. It actually frustrates me that those political content creators that lean more towards entertainment get more exposure than you. Which is one of the reasons why the left constantly progresses, because they educate their base and they take serious academic content like this seriously, but those on the right or conservatives are mainly watching guys like Crowder, Ben Shapiro, and Charlie Kirk Who offer just about zero substantive content.
He's much better but not really enough. This video really fails to explain why Hegel was equally attractive to the right wing also of Jena University in Germany back in the 19th century, and also had many right wing, conservative Hegelian thinkers. And he seems to fail at directly addressing Hegel himself (not the interpretations of Marx or the non-communist left). Because all his understanding and criticism of Hegel here is dependent of later Leftist instantiations, who himself had no knowledge or possible way of knowing how his conceptual system would be used after his life - his critique rather founders on itself by making Hegel a Leftist, which he absolutely was not whe he wrote his major works. And unlike other far more original rightist conservatives like Scruton who was able to appreciate the subtlety if Hegel's "labour of the negative", despite his rejection of it, this video is just plainly wholesale dismissive of the vital concept.
If you want a truly intelligent defense of the right conservatism, Scruton is probably the best thinkers recently out there, and although he probably did not reach wokeist ideology, presents a far more substantive critiques of the Left and follows its historical development closely.
@@erlinacobrado7947 I'm not sure his intentions were to critique Hegel, nor do I think he necessarily considered Hegel a leftist. The purpose was to focus on leftism and its implementation of Hegelian philosophy, which would make it unnecessary to really get into Hegel himself politically.
@@erlinacobrado7947 Yeah, I've got some Scruton books, but I'm not particularly looking for anything in defensive conservatism. I also don't think Lindsay is defending conservatism, but liberal democracy. I don't even know that Lindsay is a conservative, if I'm not mistaken, Lindsey considers himself a left of center liberal, or a classical liberal of sorts.
I do really appreciate the heads up, though. I just appreciate Lindsey's approach to actually taking time and putting an effort into trying to educate people with in-depth material.
I love the opening music and animation to New Discourses videos. I feel they accurately capture the gravity of the lecture's content.
what, that folkey music? it's pretty cool, I guess.
@@joedarrow5422 you call that folksey?
I heard that some people are gonna lose their marbles after they hear about this video.
This should be interesting.
The reason for their discomfort is not so clear, and James has mused on this too.
One would think that those on the Left who study this field would be confident and secure in their depth of knowledge, whereas in fact they seem insecure and resent any intrusion - even if it's just the one guy versus their numbers in many institutions.
I see this quite often in the Far Left; behind the bluster a concern that their house of cards wouldn't take much to topple it. I put a large amount of their insecurity down to them watching and judging each other more than their opponents - there are some fault-lines there if we learn how to exploit them..
@@jakell99 (this is a long half baked comment from somebody who is relatively new to higher level philosophy, do with it whatever you want) its seems pretty clear to me. Look at rates of mental illness broken down by political ideology. Marxists are the most insecure and mentally ill, the alt right is the least insecure and mentally ill. These ideas aren't just ideas to them, this is who they are. When you adopt intersectionality, (marxist materialism and atheism in general exaggerate this effect) the ideology becomes literally everything you are. Everything is political to them, (i forgot who the feminists where who said "the personal is the political") and when everything is political including every single part of their intersectional identity, and this is what politics means to them, when they lose that or feel it losing stability, they feel that they are losing everything without even realizing it. That may be why you hear about "black bodies" and other similar terminology that reduces existence to just a hollow body with a skin colour. To your average non politically inclined person, their ideas aren't this crucial to them, but losing them still feels like losing a small part of yourself. To a scientifically inclined person, evidence is evidence, they simply don't have an attachment to ideas in the same way as others. Throw in feminism, the devaluation of sex, masturbation, body positivity, drugs, etc. And you have a decent helping of biological and unconscious factors that push people towards mental insecurity andd weakness. They basically turn humans into nothing but hollow shells of themselves while pushing in the indulgence of vices and rejection of any kind of responsibility or meaning to anything.
@@Andrew-th8jk let me help you even more.
Seriously look into Cluster B personality disorders. Specifically how narcassitic individuals frame the world, see the world, and relate to the world. It will make sense.
@@damnmexican90 I believe an even simpler yet truthful analysis that isn't prevalent in psychology because of the left wing bias there would be to simply identify the individuals as "libtards", despite them contradicting liberalism.
@@damnmexican90 rather fitting that ndp stands for narcissistic personality disorder as well as new democratic party, which is the democratic socialist party of Canada. They used to be called the communist party but that changed. Nowadays they are extraordinarily authoritarian and definitely wouldn't support the anarchy/statelessness that communism requires.
Of course... listening to this again as it is brilliant.
I don't think it's just Hegel. I think it is Idealist thought without grounding... generally.
Remember... Kant sought to resolve or ground Hume... & Schopenhauer sought to correct " the great Kant. "
When one studies Idealism, one has to be extremely careful in not transposing whatever Idealism one studies... upon one's everyday life in this world of representation/appearances.
Idealism... imho... save for those of Berkeley & Kant... will absolutely lead one to extreme skepticism. Even they will lead one to that, but both offer resolutions to that issue - God & Deontology.
I guess we could say that Schopenhauer grounded his Idealism in a Will without a purpose.
When Idealism isn't resolved... it turns into that extreme skepticism ( Modern skepticism, that is. I don't find much wrong in ancient skepticism, ) and all of the ills James is talking about.
Ancient Skepticism realizes that all thought turns into an infinite regress... & tells one to be calm in the face of that... & not go down the effin rabbit hole of trying to find The Thing Itself, imho.
In the end, Idealism says that there is probably... The Thing Itself & one MUST know that it is unattainable, and seek to resolve that quest for it... or one will go down the path of the infinite regress of thought turned into action: Implementation of the Dialectic. They keep coming up with additions in their dialectical quest, because their mind is engaged in an infinite regress acted out in the world.
They are digging a hole to the other side of the world, and, of course, need an infinite amount of shovels ( tools ) to get there!
Essentially, as we see of them... they do not exist in reality... they are in a fantasy quest for something they can never attain... The Thing Itself. That is, in themselves as individuals, and in reality.
Goedell tells us in his Incompleteness Theorems... that we can, indeed, go on forever... and we need to ground our realization that this is, indeed, a world of subjective representation and appearances... or we will spin out of control like the ungrounded Idealists...
A tour de force, James. I suggest a future episode on the roots of Hegalian Dialectic, which goes back to Plato. Hegel was deeply influenced by Plato. Hegel's "state" looks a lot like Plato's Republic.
According to Popper, "Republic" is a biased translation of that title. A literal translation would be the "Constitution" or "The City-State" or the "State"
However, the idea that Plato created the _Republic_ as a vehicle to describe his idea of the ideal state is outright b.s., and I have read the book (admittedly only in translation). What the text says is the he wants to describe what the principles of justice are, meaning what is social justice or what is fairness for the individual person. He says very clearly that he will describe his conception of the ideal society but only for the purpose of illustrating what the principles of justice are. He says that he does this because explaining what justice is for the individual is too complicated. I think he's copping out, or maybe the word was not translated quite correctly.
In any case, what justice for the individual constitutes is the individual being provided or allowed to hold a position in society consistent with their own nature. This is what the "Myth of the Metals" passage is about. The idea even found its way into Marxism in the dictum "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This idea never meant what some people think it does, that the most productive do the work and the most profligate consumers get everything they want without doing a lick of useful work.
The idea in fact refers back to the Platonic order and the idea that there is some hierarchy of natures within the human herd, leaving different individuals with different abilities and different needs. The roots of Marxism in Platonic idealism are very strong but on the ground it didn't work out so well in the Soviet system. The workers gave according to their ability and received a good pair boots every two years and a week in the Crimea. The administrative class gave according their ability too and received according to their need for a better apartment, occasional caviar, first class train tickets and shopping trips in Paris.
There you have it.
@@goldmanstaxxx6408 Say something. If you are going to discuss philosophy, you need to put it on the table. Like I did. Maybe you are neo-Aristotelian in your viewpoint and you understand that my take on Plato is the definitive pushback against neo-Aristotelianism. Well, you have to live with it.
@James Patrick "A community of women" is also included in "The Manifesto of the Communist Party." You have to destroy the family if you are a statist, Marxist, or true Socialist. It's their #1 goal.
@@goldmanstaxxx6408 Diogenes>Aristotle
Thumbs up even before watching...much gratitude for your amazing work, James!👍
I avoid studying Hegel and Marx. Instead I study the dialogue of people who read Hegel and Marx. Often their explanations of Hegel and Marx are steeped in confusion, while those who support Hegel and Marx tend to have massive logical holes in their arguments.
Wow. This was enlightening. I heard these words used so many times, but never had a good understanding of what they actually meant to the people that use them. Thanks.
Suggesting to read Hicks to learn about Philosophy is like suggesting reading Dawkins to learn about The Bible or Ayn Rand to learn about socialism or Richard Wolf to learn about capitalism, why not just recommend reading the original sources instead of someone who strawmans them.
Because the video is made to tell his audience what they want to hear, not provide a thorough review of Hegelian scholarship.
1:41:58 Beginning of discussion on "aufhaben," the tool of the dialectic axis.
aufheben (aufhaben mean something different)
29:37 Minor correction (for those who wish to read it in full): Marx "My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite." is from the afterword to the second (German) edition of Capital I, not the preface.
Lindsay do not have an understanding of Hegel.
@@mikkelborchsenius1156 I'm curious your reasoning... can you explain your thinking?
@@mikkelborchsenius1156 Nobody understands Hegel, because he can't explaim himself properly.
@@hopeprevails3213 That is incorrect. It is only people who don't know the german language who encounters these difficulties.
@@mikkelborchsenius1156 Like his translators? They don’t understand German as well?
This is undersold. It is an impressively comprehensive review of Left politics and philosophy over the last 200 years. I am in awe. This needs to be in the academic reading/watching list anywhere where political history and philosophy is still being taught.
Amazing podcast. I'm so pleased that you connected these contemporary political and philosophical movements to their metaphysical roots. It all starts there! Once obvious example through the evolution of the lingo of today is how the word, "woke" was used primarily by spiritual seekers around 2012 to describe spiritual awakening, being awake to the nature of reality, and the coming of the "apocalypse" (which means unveiling, or awakening). Around 2016 during the US election, this was adopted by the conspiracy theorists to describe their awakening to the political and government conspiracies. And now we see this label being thrown around by the social justice and political activists to describe their awakening to the societal systems and structures of racial and class oppression.
I've watched it go from this ism to that ism, from spiritual to secular, and today I'm anxiously waiting for where "woke" will go next.
Hegels absolute knowledge is the realisation that everything is always in contradiction with itself. i.e we think we have self certainty until we find a truth that contradicts that. That's how we/the world develops through an ongoing dialectic of opposition and re-evaluation. The dialectic has no end, no final stopping point .
Marx thought he could overcome the contradictions of capitalism with communism but he was wrong.
I wouldn't blame Hegel
Logic has the law of non contradiction.
The dialectic has teleology.
@@GODHATESADOPTION Hegel called ideas like "A=A" and the law of non-contradiction, as "nothing but the law of abstract understanding." Such laws accurately describe the consistency of things that are essentially mathematical in character. But when you look at a question like, "Is so-and-so a good person?", these laws of abstract understanding do not really function very well. "If A is a good person, what do good people do? OK, but on January 15th, 2021, A did not do the things that good people do. Therefore, A is not a good person." That would logically follow, would it not? What Hegel was pointing out is that logic does not work like that in the conceptual realm. Hegel would be much more comfortable with a statement like, "If you are going to be yourself, then you are going to have to change." If you are poisoned by the presenter of this video to Hegel, then simply replace the vehicle with G.K. Chesterton, a conservative Christian who nonetheless was perfectly at home with paradox, and the limitations of abstract understanding. To bridge the gap between abstract understanding, and what Hegel called "the concrete" (life as actually lived, situations as they actually are,) then you can say that "A" is "how a person is at a specific instant in time." But when we are talking about who people are, we are typically NOT talking about who a person is at a specific instant; we are much more interested in who and how that person is as a process.
@@GODHATESADOPTION Yes, Hegel's concept of the dialectic recognizes teleology. But only by looking backwards. You can't predict the future with Hegelian thinking. Like how you could look at your life, and see how things developed, what role things played in making a certain outcome. Or how you could look at your body, and see, "Oh, well, my stomach digests food, and my throat brings food to it from my mouth." Telos, telos. But you can't then say, "So in the future, this is definitely what my future will be." Hegel didn't believe or argue that. Karl Marx did, but Karl Marx also wrote, "My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite."
@@LionKimbro no I like hegel and gk I just don't like the hegelian dialectic applied to cultural marxism
What other thinker prior to Hegel even came close to developing a system for thinking about thinking, a problem, which undoubtedly began with Plato?
I think that Heidegger and his understanding of the need for a Destruktion of thought going back to Plato and his concern over inauthenticity of culture would slot in nicely with a lot of this analysis. Not that your excellent breakdown needed any padding. :)
my friend and also james, heidegger goes from the idea of human fear of emptiness, hegel says something like: the human is evolving therefore it must be good and good into a goal ( prove , where is the prove??) So for heidegger destruction is always there always, no possibilty to escape to a higher utopia
@@Hans-mg5nf grim, but allowing freedom at moments. I think Heidegger believed art was a respite.
Unlike Hegel, a freaky Prussian wizard, wiggling the rubber bone of Utopia of a spiked pit.
@@Hans-mg5nf Hegel has never said "human evolving therefore it must be good". Also, this is a really bad understanding of Hegel.
eeehh this is a little bit for me this channel and I am dutch so give me some time to understand your irony , 🤣🤣😎😎🤗🤗@@montycantsin8861
@@mikkelborchsenius1156 Ok lets go for conflict: I never liked hegel, there is no end utopia or reunited between ' god ' and his ' son ' or something in the end of times , both must excist realism and utopiasme, forever.
Sorry for my bad english 😎😎😎
English lit PhD student here. This talk was more informative than my doctoral level class on Marxist Literary Theory
"Should you ever intend to dull the wits of a young man and to incapacitate his brains for any kind of thought whatsoever, then you cannot do better than give him Hegel to read." -Schopenhauer, quoted by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies
@Execute Crab-21 I think he just meant Hegel is hard to read
@@TheGreatEric02 Way to totally misunderstand the quote. Ironic.
Utterly brilliant and compelling discourse from James. I am writing a book on wokeness, and James is great source of insights and information for me.
Holy sh&t. I never thought how deep this attack really goes. I had a basic idea/understanding of what this woke left was, I’m definitely not an intellectual and my mind is blown. I will have to listen again so I can have a better understanding of what I am listening to. The double speak and language I noticed to a degree but it sounds like anything can actually mean anything depending on context and desired effect. Well thank you, this was incredible and mind opening.
Sounds like the double speak of the current woke left. Just confuse people with words.
Really, if you want to know about Kant or Hegel, read a book written by them. This video, and by extension the video's creator, are doing you a disservice. And pushing an agenda. Whether it's for profit/clicks or another reason, I couldn't say.
@@shannonm.townsend1232 shut up. who made you the gate keeper of knowledge oh wise one?
@@shannonm.townsend1232 The agenda of this podcast is to expose the "operating system" that the left are operating under. The point isn't to speak a lecture that discusses the the totality of Kant or Hegel intellectual works. Kant and Hegel are important (within this podcast) about the matter that they believed in alchemy and dialectic thinking and how this thinking influenced Karl Marx. Karl Marx is important because he devised his theory of revolution that we call Marxism. This is all important because we have modern day alchemists who are creating their utopia within the basic worldview of Marxism.
@@shannonm.townsend1232 yeah this shit is super skewed towards a very particular worldview.
The "Aufheben der Kultur" part is really resonating with me, but also really blackpilling me.
"The Dialectic is a method of Worship" 1) No it is not and 2) there is no consistent dialectic between Marx and Hegel. You can see from Peter Kalkavage's book _The Logic of Desire_ that Hegel's Dialectic focuses on three primary moments in ontological progression: cancelation, preservation, and lifting up. This in itself is the essential point of determinate negation and aufheben. Determinate Negation is something which Hegel theorized from Spinoza, specifically Jacobi's interpretation of Spinoza which stated "Omnis Determinatio est negatio," all determination is negation. One of Hegel's key metaphors for this process is That of the bud, blossom, and fruit in §2 of the Phenomenology of Spirit (sections symbols aren't hard to make, you simply hold down alt and press 0167). However, what may be tricky for some to understand is that this metaphor, besides being a representation of a representation, is a representation of the logic working phenomenologically (on the level of phenomena) and not on the level of ontology. For the understanding of the logic ontologically, we must turn to Hegel's _Science of Logic_ _(Wissenschaft der Logik)._ It is the beginning part of the Logic that we see this play out in the triad of Being, Nothing, Becoming. Furthermore, we must recognize that this triad -- Being, Nothing, Becoming -- is 1 part of the Objective Logic, the other part of the Objective Logic includes Essence, and still beyond that the last part of the Logic of Science has the Subjective Logic, which is the logic of Concepts or conceptualization. Why do I bring this up? Because Hegel project is the unity of Objective and Subjective which is first §17 of the Phenomenology of Spirit: " In my view, which can be justified only by the exposition of the system itself [Science is only absolute as systematized], _everything turns on grasping and expressing the True, not only as Substance, but equally as Subject."_ [my emphasis] Understanding Substance as Subject is this understanding that Substance (the objective side) is moved and influenced by the Subject (the Subjective Side). This is not that my feelings can change the substance of the world, but, for Hegel, Consciousness, which is something that also conceptualizes itself is at one point influenced by the external, can reach out to objects (beings in themself) and retrieve part of that object conceptually (being for us). Also, the Substance in Part is another attempted refutation of Spinoza.
But why bring this all up? Because there are many traditions that do not follow Hegel, in fact, some have sprung up against Hegel. There are the early anarchists who rose up (originally named Libertarians, a name that was stolen by right-wing idiots) against Marx because they believed Marx's theories had a certain authoritarianism to them (which will make right-wingers happy because russia russia russia), but there are also more recent leftisms that are not Hegelian. Specifically the work of Gilles Deleuze, Antonio Negri, Michael Hardt, and Rosi Braidotti. Gilles Deleuze wrote his book _Difference and Repetition_ to combat German Idealism, Kant and Hegel, with his concepts of Difference and Repetition, or more accurately Difference in itself and repetition for itself. There are two keys to this: 1) difference in itself is ontological difference which precedes Identity and repetition is a concept that goes against Hegelian Mediation. In my estimate, Hegel's concept and usage of Mediation and Immediacy are more important than his Concept of Dialectic. Furthermore, Antonio Negri, who was a Marxist theorist involved in the Italian Autonomata and Operaismo movements (Autonomy and Workerism) worked from an anti-Hegelian Perspective, specifically a Spinozist Perspective. You can see this from his book _The Savage Anomaly_ which looks at Spinoza's Corpus against Hegelian Dialectics and understands how Spinoza (and Machiavelli and Marx) form a tradition that is politically and legally different from the typical tradition of Hobbes, Rousseau, and Hegel. Specifically, Negri shows how Hegel and many Scholars got Spinoza wrong and how radically Spinoza's political philosophy is and how it is radically different from Hobbes who many philosophers have states Spinoza simply copied from. Beyond this, you have Michael Hardt who has worked with Negri. The most interesting right now is Braidotti who is specifically a NeoSpinozist and follows the tradition of Deleuze and Foucault (Foucault is another anti-Hegelian Leftist). She works in Posthumanisms and you can find many lectures of hers online.
Suffice it to say, you claim to be apolitical, but you wrongly label all leftists as Hegelian. Most leftists haven't read Hegel. Many Leftists haven't read Marx. Marx, for a fact, has a different Dialectic. I meant to mention this earlier, but a book people can read on this is _Dance of the Dialectic: Steps in Marx's Method_ by Bertell Ollman. So, I don't think this channel is apolitical. I think your cynical theories are covering up a hidden bias towards the right wing.
August, I knew you would say that.
'Most leftists haven't read Hegel'. Amen. This isn't even getting into the many different readings of Hegel that includes (alongside those you've already mentioned) the likes of the Pittsburgh School, Lukács, Evald Ilyenkov, etc. etc. And all I'm hearing in Lindsay is an extremely illiterate version of what Popper wrote almost a century ago now - that was even then rightly scorned at.
Its all just satanism, eventually you evolve to theology.
@@GODHATESADOPTION Nope
@@merk8731 yup anything that isnt christendom is death culture facts
59:24 Key point. "You can see here how they subvert language...this is how their language games are constructed."
The bible says what ,? The word of God.words mater , language mater.
@@stevenlight5006 matter, not "mater". If " words matter" then it matters that matter is matter and not " mater ". If your statement wasn't a typo then it was kind of ironic, don't you think ? 😉
Marx believed in historical progress. He was an economist by training. His theory has to do with economies run on slavery becoming replaced by a feudal economy that became replaced by a capitalist economy that he thought would logically lead to a socialist and ultimately, a Communist economy. He thought that when the contradictions of any given system became so acute that it would necessitate a complete rearrangement into the next system the process could best be explained by Hegel's formulation of "dialectics". The dynamic would be that a "negative would be positive" in that, solving for the seemingly irresolvable problems of an obsolete system you create a new and improved one !(NOT that "Marxists love negativity" like this obscurantist is attempting to infer !) ""Wokeness" is basically "identity politics" or special pleading on behalf of various "opressed" subgroups that most Marxists argue AGAINST ( ! ) because they put groups in competition with each other that Marxism sees as natural allies ! As a matter of fact , the prevailing opinion on "Woke" folk among modern day Marxists is that they are part of a program of "divide and conquer" on behalf of the "status quo" and constitute an obstacle to progress! "Critical Theory" and "Deconstructionism" likewise not only decidedly have no "broken connection" to Marxism but are actually diametrically opposed to the main thrust of Marxian analysis and throwing that in here just reveals this present pod-cast polemic to be yet another inch- deep dive into the ahistorical emo-driven red-baiting milieu of the Pragers and Petersons on the fat-cat apologist side of the culture war devide ! The more you listen to these things the dumber you get so I'm gonna quit while I'm ahead ! As for the rest of you have fun having your "smugnorance" flattered , your superstitions co-signed and your paranoid delusions amplified to the point where there's a B.L.M.er under every bed and the ominous spectre of Antifa is comin' to GITCHA ! ( Boo ! )
@@richardsawicki8521 Marx was a philosopher by training, not an economist. Later (1850s), he began teaching himself economics.
@@codex3048 He seems to have done a pretty good job as his predictive description from such a temporal remove of our imperial self devouring present predicament rings truer and has more utility in suggesting remedies than all the "Chicago Boys" apologetics for predatory rent seeking and von Hayek 's retrograde fantasies combined !
Taken to its absolute fundamentals, dialectic leftism is nothing more than rebellion against reality itself.
It is like a parent explaining to a child that 2+2=4 and a child responds with "No, want it to be 2+2=5". Then a parent explains that it's a universal law, that is part of reality itself, that's how it has to be, and a child responds "NO, I HATE IT, I WILL MAKE IT 2+2=5" and spends the rest of his/her life unsuccessfully but stubbornly trying to make "2+2=5".
These pathetic attempts take many forms. Using 2.5 and claiming that it is 2, forcefully adding 1 from other sources, claiming that all math should be rethought to align with "2+2=5". In the end, when none of that works, and when the defeat is obvious, an intellectual has two last lies in his sleeve. First: "Reality is subjective, so are mathematical rules, 2+2=5 to me". Second: "Looks like in reality 2+2 can't be 5. Does that mean that a parent was right and 2+2=4? No, if I can't be right, no one else can, math does not exist". That's how it is like.
Any person for whom this form of reasoning is fully descriptive can be reliably depended upon to do their best to rig any democratic election in which they have an interest in the result.
Of course... you must use Any Means Necessary to defeat anyone standing in the way of The Empire Of The Good.
Explains why the left causes a physical response. I find it revolting and physically draw back as if it is a poisonous snake. I believe the Bible.
I'm just wondering what any of this has to do with healthcare.
@@justinhart2831 Well, for starters, we have a rationing problem in Healthcare, as we do in everything else.
The free-market approach is to ration by price. If you want that difficult procedure, it's gonna cost ya. If you want that easy/simple procedure... no problem.
Or, you can go Socialized Medicine. If you want any procedure... get in line and wait. If it's a direly needed procedure, maybe you can get bumped ahead of others. But then the others get angry. But if it's a simple/cheap/easy procedure? Again, no problem.
The issue as I see it is incentives. A free-market system incentivizes doing whatever the provider can hor the patient... testing, state of the art procedures, etc. It fosters innovation and creates incentives to providers to work for the health of the patient. New innovation, and increasing success creates the incentive to make things faster, cheaper, better and more widely available.
Once again, though, cost to the patient is the burden.
With a socialized system, everybody pays constantly, through a portion of some method of taxation, and higher earners share a greater burden, while lower earners carry a lesser burden (typically), ensuring everyone has access to care.
The problem is that, since such systems must be rationed, procedures are limited. Trying out new methods, or even asking for additional testing by providers is disincentivized, leading to more overlooked health problems, or late care... sometimes too late.
It's a sticky problem, either way. Either way, there's the danger of bad providers, misdiagnoses, and malpractice. In both cases, patients can become frustrated out of seeking care, either because of fear of costs in the decentralized (free market) healthcare system, or from wait-times and bureaucratic hurdles, in the case of centralized (socialized) healthcare.
I generally try to take care of myself, watch my weight, my diet, refrain from drinking, drugs, dangerous activities, and get good sleep and exercise, all while hoping for the best, whichever way our U.S. system ends up.
Because we are in a see-saw boondoggle, with interests on both sides complicating the shit out of our system.
@@justinhart2831 sorry... I just realized I didn't connect it to the main topic. Western Liberal thinkers will tend to prefer the free market health-care approach, whereas Socialist (neo-marxist/hegelian) thinkers will prefer Socialized healthcare.
I think that's where political philosophy most greatly impacts how our society produces a form for Healthcare provision.
34:07 It's always about hating Christ. Always. That's always at the heart of these philosophies.
Robin DiAngelo - robbing the anglo(saxon)
They mock the compassionate as “suffering together”. All we need to continue evolutionary advancement is rule of law under natural law and Christian love, thank you Curt Doolittle!
3:16:50 beginning of an important discussion of Hegel's concept of the primacy of the State over human rights, i.e., rights are something granted by the State, in opposition to the Lockean/Jeffersonian concept of rights *preceding* the State, and existing independent of the State. Leftism is the total rejection of this notion.
James Barlow well, the scientific rational view is that nobody can claim any right except what they exercise through coercion. How nice.
This is why the leftist are able to claim anything is a human right _if_ it can be granted by the gvoernmnet.
Health care. Education. Housing. Clothing. Jobs? Water? Food? The list will forever go on because the left simultaneously believes that the government should provide everything.
Contrast this to the right where human rights are something intangible. Freedom of speech, religion, movement, security, etc. These are things that do not require labour from someone else, but instead, they are something inalienable, something humans are born with and carry with them for their entire lives.
Rousseau also who believed our rights in society come from the state as a transaction for which we trade our natural rights.
@James Barlow It's an old myth, goes back to the Greeks.
@James Barlow No. Because Genesis means something totally different and you cannot "base" something on this because it's over, forever, because Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of knwoledge. What Rouseau and Hobbes are doing is something different. They imagine a pre-existing Human state and base their Antrophologie on that.
And yes "Human Rights" is Mythology i.e. Humans Rights doesn't exist.
Finally James managed to keep the video short. :P
Wow, I know a lot about this subject and more, but you have blown my mind on this. Thank you for posting and sharing. Keep sharing, the World needs this.
1:24:44 "Their goal is to teach children to think dialectically."
I noticed that yrs ago just talking to some of these millennials.
Yeah, this crazy.
Children taught to think dialectically become dangerous adults.
'Dialectic' as construed today allows for contradictions in arguments--
What a sham dismissal of consistency, logic, and evidence!
What an unfair handicap, to ignore your own contradictions!
doublethink
@@itsv1p3r or triple perhaps!
That’s how you can tell it’s a grift.
@@januarysson5633 true that!
Karl Marx starved his own kids to death because of his own laziness. That's one of the references we can take to put ourselves into his shoes and think, maybe the reason his made these all up because he was trying so hard to think of excuses for his own failures and misery, those excuses also excuses the fact that he didn't feed his kids, did not bear the responsibilities as a parent, and he delegated the responsibilities to the state as a result, that's the only way he can "escape" from his responsibilities through fiddling through his own mind.
We have to make a movie about Marx and show how Marxism was created through personal failures and sins.
"Racial Gnosticism".... that's as damn near a perfect term for CRT as I've ever heard.
Before Al Bundy. Before Al Capone. Before Al Einstein and Al Schweitzer. Before even Al Kabong. There was and, as those brave enough to listen will soon learn, there still is...Al Chemy.
Al Zheimer.. how did you..erm .. forget about uh hi. m .. i mean. uuu..... .. um.. .. joebiden?
Solve et coagula
It is interesting the narrator assertively links Hegel to leftism and postmodernism. I am aware of many rightist Hegelians (especially libertarians). Also the term dialectics is more epistimogilocal than a political term. It is unfortunate to see a great thinker politicized. He did not create Marx or Lenin. He left his ideology open to interpretation and both right and left wings tried to own him - ironically.
By biology he means conditioning. Furthermore, the philosophy of socialism seems to be the philosophy of the lowest denominator. That is, unless the lowest among us is uplifted then no one is uplifted. That is why it requires groupthink and uniformity because that is the realization of the philosophy.
Yes, and the philosophy of capitalism is that of the highest denominator. That is, the highest should always be uplifted and who cares about the lowest. That is why it requires no-think.
@@stevemorley7657 that is a false comparison. Capitolism uses incentives (money, goods, reputation) to get others to do an act. No one is forced to do the act. Also what is received from doing the act can be used for whatever purpose you would like. There is no assumptions of morality involved here but simple transactional actions.
Socialism assumes every action has moral standing which puts every transactional action into question. Uniformity is a necessity in a socialist state in order for everyone to have common needs. This is a monoculture (I.e. non-multiculturism) .
"Aufheben" means "to cancel out" like when you combine a positive value with a negative value
Sublimation and then "Build back better"
The most valuable 3hrs50minutes I've ever spent on UA-cam, including classic Vines. Thank you for saving my mind and soul, James Lindsay.
What is Vines?
@@jrb4935 pre UA-cam shorts and TikTok. 30-second video loops.
Why do you set the bar so low
Whoa baby, 4 hours of James ASMR. 😂
Where is the info that it is 4 hours?
@@andyh1219 Put mouse cursor over video, you will see how many minutes this last, it is 3 hours 50 minutes.
I literally fell asleep (tired not bored) woke up almost two hours later and was like what the hell. Relistened to it on 2x later it was great.
@@elisabeth-vallee Thanks
It funny listening to smart people I don't understand makes me feel calm and relaxed. Asmr yes
Thesis: Critical theory is a valuable tool for uncovering imperfections in society.
Antithesis: Critical theorists use it tyrannically to dominate and control opposition.
Synthesis: Those that require human faith and fealty to systems humanity creates are the true opponents of an enlightened moral progress.
ha ha
, , , for atheists , apparently
Those who do not believe GOD believe anything
@@gregjames2684 that doesn’t follow, friend
@@friendoftheshow8117
How so?
I have no faith in your dialectic.
Dialectic started with Plato/Socrates and in the Socratic form is extremely positive in that it aims to reveal the truth.
Note that even Hegel pointed out, as did Plato, that dialectic which is the art of identifying contradictions in a persons argument with the primary aim of revealing the truth or the universal.
They pointed out that dialectic could be used to essentially win an argument without revealing the truth. The aim simply to win. Hence dialectic could be used for evil.
This is why Plato withheld philosophical study until the age of 30
it took me a few days to get through this the first time I listened, back now after nearly a year to try and reabsorb the information.
I think Hegels connections to Fascist and Communist ideology should be highlighted more.
“The negation of the negation” was beyond the young Hegelians, and even went over Marx
head. In the negation of the negation writings Hegel tells us that any sweeping breakthrough emancipatory revolutionary project will turn into
it’s opposite.
That is one reason that Marxism cannot be pinned on Hegel.
The video presenter is wrong in his thesis.
@@thenowchurch6419 Left-Hegelianism is essentially neo-Fichteanism. Also he doesnt want to realise that his americanism is Nihilism (which he confusingly describes in over 3 hours). Spinoza, which he mentions at the end, as one philosophy of the "liberal" americans is what Hegel takes. hegel says that his Philosophie is Spinozism he goes even further and says every philosopie is Spinozism. . So that is the whole problem and why America is at the beginning a Nihilistic project. And why the liberals react so strongly to CRT.
@khaːɔskampf So you are saying that Materialism is a form of metaphysics?
@khaːɔskampf I do not need to go anywhere to confirm anything.
These topics are my bread and butter.
My point is that materialism denies metaphysics and as you said cannot account for consciousness.
Thanks for a good analysis of the landscape of Ontology and
Philosophy today.
Peace.
@khaːɔskampf Cool bro. I like to refresh and could learn a thing or two as well. No problem.
Who says ‘woke’ anymore, except perhaps my FOX-addicted 77-year-old uncle? While informative in some parts, one gets the feeling that Christian neoliberalism (a paradox, I know) is heavily clouding his reasoning in others.
32:15 Marx was already evolving toward materialism before he read Feuerbach. His dissertation was on Epicurus and Democritus.
Does... does the speaker not know that Hegel was a Christian? Where he thought that Christianity was the highest and truest form of religion and therefore based his thought on the salvation one receives in God? That Hegel Repudiates Descartes methodological doubt for a methodology of despair. As Peter Kalkavage describes in his book _The Logic of Desire:_
"We must observe here that consciousness in its universal meaning must not be confused with its individual finite shapes. It is the former that undergoes the transition from one shape to the next. As we saw in our discussion of negation, consciousness, as the concept of itself, is not confined to its finite shapes. It is restless because it constantly senses, or divines, the finitude of these shapes. But an individual shape is not aware of the transition from one shape to another. It cannot leap outside itself. It is true that experience generates a new object, but consciousness is not aware that this has happened. The positive result of suffering (the determinate negation) is implicit for it and explicit only for the phenomenological observer. That is why learning, for consciousness, is a Way of Despair. For it, the result of its experience of every one of its natural shapes is nothing but contradiction and failure-a purely negative dialectic."
"Consciousness learns, in other words, by exhausting itself, by experiencing the finitude of its natural shapes and thereby coming to despair of all things natural." (pg. 23 and 24)
And as Kalkavage states earlier where he relates Hegel's conception of determinate negation and aufheben to Christianity,
"Determinate negation and Aufhebung are prominent in the mysteries of the New Te stament. There is the passage from John I quoted earlier. There is also the hard-to-grasp relation that Jesus has to the law as something fulfilled but also canceled and transcended (Matthew 5:17). And ordinary language, whose waywardness Hegel loves, seems to capture sublation in nay-saying moments like the following: ''Last night's music was beautiful -no, it was sublime!" The "no" here both cancels the previous statement and lifts it to a higher level." (pg. 16)
"Gospel of John: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" (12:24)" (pg. 15)
What may be problematic is that right wing people don't understand this aspect of Hegel enough and believe in a false Christianity propped up by Oil money and other Right-wing bull.
Dont conflate neo con with right wing. Thats delusional.
It seems that anytime some intellectual appears on the scene with broad, abstract ideas, no matter how loose or convoluted, a certain portion of the population will find those ideas and take them up with varied consequences.
Just here to say that I am a believer and practitioner of Hermetic religion and philosophy. I am also a Conservative Capitalist who is completely fed up with this "woke" "victim" cult. Hermetic and neo-plotonic philosophy has nothing to do with this "woke" far leftist faux "anti-racist" neo-marxism. It is about responsibility, attempting to know God (The Good, The All, The Mind of Creation) and the pursuit of self perfection. These are the opposite of the grievances, "victimhood", and oppressor/oppressed ideologies pushed by the "woke" left. ✌🙏🇺🇸
"Well said." Again it is the Judeo Christians , not the polytheistic believers , who are demonizing other paths toward the divine.
To understand Maxim read the Gulag Archipelago! It should be required reading for all high school students!
I prefer the PlayBoy magazine !
To understand authoritarianism
Those are basically campfire stories for reactionaries
it was written by a dude who wanted to nuke the ussr and kill hundreds of millions
This is one of the best videos i ever seen. I believe in God but i am not religious so i dont go to church etc. I am a Christian but i dont follow all the traditions of the faith but i feel a connection with God and i have a deep faith. I dont know if its the Christian God that i feel this connection with but certainly hope that it is. The God i connect is one who gives me strenght and tells me to be as self reliant as possible, love animals, dont hurt other people and be grateful for all the technology and conforts of the modern world. I dont believe that God is just nature, i think it's the Creator of all things and is responsible for everything that is beautiful, pure and enjoyable in life. I hope to discover more about who the God i believe really is by exploring your channel. Thanks!