I personally have a huge interest in political philosophy and sociology. This podcast has been doing a great job of meeting my needs with its coverage of religious philosophy and now also political philosophy?!! I couldn’t be more content with this episode! ❤️❤❤
Identity politics is currently being driven be narcissim, individualism, duality and anthropocentrism and that doesn't bode well for the planet and people who are not narcissists, which is most of us
Identity politics is a reaction to systemwide breakdown. I see it in the high school kids, and it's a reaction to the innate knowledge things are getting worse, but not knowing how to fix it. Because it's too hard to fix.
A shift in perspective is far from being unachievable, it's just that there are too many idiots dominating the general discourse surrounding these issues, the useful knowledge and understanding isn't getting out there and harmful misconceptions and lies keep spreading like wildfire.
I was just thinking about this very tension that always exists between the individual and the universal. We fall off the beam when we can't see our common humanity while we also enjoy our individuality as well as our particular associations (religious, community, heritage, etc.) Also I have the experience from moving from an oppressed minority group in the US to a privileged position in life. I have come to realize that how we typify these experiences is in some ways -- not all ways -- false. When I was in an oppressed group (both my parents were foreign born, had accents, dressed a little differently and I grew up in a very WASPy town -- there was open prejudice expressed) I had an extremely stable family and a modest but all I needed life. But as I moved into a more privileged position in society I experienced significant sexual harassment, a chronic illness, the mental illnesses of a close family member and other personal traumas. Well, let's just say my newfound privilege was not all it was cracked-up to be. Suffering is universal and I never make assumptions that someone is exempt from suffering. Reaching out to someone suffering is how we bond. WHICH does not mean I don't see that our society has real problems with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Essentially I believe that personalism is the way out: there is not a single person that does have a unique story but that there will also always be points of connection because we share the human condition. I enjoy working for social justice on a variety of fronts but also how seeing how none us fit neatly into categories.
I'm making one last comment here. I am not going to comment on this anymore. What is more narcissistic than an ex president who refused to concede defeat and nearly staged a coup(e?) If you search online I'm sure you can find film clips from the 1950s. Rock and roll was just becoming popular. I remember a fiery speech by a white possibly official, or possibly just a klansman, or both, predicting the downfall of American society because of the introduction of rock music. He predicted that rock music would lead to widespread miscegenation and therefore the whole country would fall apart. This fear of institutional destruction must be some type of archetype, because that's often the response in multiple arenas when there is a challenge to the way things have been. Multiple churches have responded to charges of sexual abuse by its clerical staff by counter-charging 'You are trying to destroy our church." Or with gay marriage "You're making a mockeru of marriage." So my question is why is that? Why is a call for change often conflated with institutional destruction? As I see it, the only thing different between now and say the 1950s (which people seem to be absolutely in love with that's some sort of golden age).... is that the identity politics favored the people who have historically been in charge. Everyone black everyone Brown everyone Asian Every Woman knew that identity was active and absolutely instrumental and how their lives ran. The only people who didn't think that were white guys who truly believed hat everything they had, did, or were involved with, was merit-based. I would argue that this argument that's being presented here it's being presented as an either/or proposition, as unecessarily dualistic. Identity awareness does not mean that one is necessarily narcissistic. It also doesn't mean that one is unable to empathize with other people. Ask someone who has to continually analyze current events Etc from multiple lenses, much of this serms like an intellectual workaround for people in historically dominant groups. In order to have a society that is inclusive for all people and gives all groups, the majority and the minority, access to the good things in life, both sides or multiple sides are going to have to do internal work. That is what I don't see happening. I don't see groups of white people getting together for groups to talk about how they were raised around race. I don't see groups of men getting together to talk about how they were raised around issues around of gender. What I see is this centrist position coming from groups who have been socially dominant. " If it doesn't support me! If I can't do exactly what I want, or what my father was able to do when he was my age, then we are headed for destruction." That's not the intent. 'Finally, given that women are 50 percent usually of the population globally, and that people of color are at least 80% of the population globally, I find it interesting that these movements are not considered universal. Because usually what those groups are asking for are things that benefit human beings across the board. I am so disgusted with all of this.
Often the meaning of a word is within the word used to describe the meaning. Under Stand To accept the proposition is superior to you current cognition and to position yourself as a supplicant would to a teacher.
The basis of identity politics is prejudice. Prejudice that all people from a minority think or should think the same. That belonging to a group defines you. It is not focused in what every humans share and rationality. Rationality is the only thing in comum between man. Everything must be considerated with rationality, not individual experience and particular feelings. Particular emotions and experiences divides us.
We can make the law equal to everyone. But we can't change culture by force through a "just" discrimination. Like there is a correct and a wrong kind of discrimination. Things will get better slowly. We shouldn't want to change the world in a few decades. If we start seeing us as equals and share existence together, the world will improve.
Withhold judgement of Others as much and as long as utterly possible because the moment You decide of a judgement of anothers identity, You'll always be wrong pidgion holing People, because Everyone is truly unique. The same is true for Oneself, if the identity is anything that is superficial or subject to change. Ego, (ego-mind-thought) is the illusion at the root of all identity, up to but excluding, the realization of One's true Self. The true Self is unchanging, eternal, Spirit. Universalism, if I understand the concept correctly, is a quality that's wise and noble to pursue, in that; 'What's good for All is good for Self, but what's good for Self may not be good for All.' May All be well.
I like the gentleman very much, and it is clear that his take on universalism is not just something theoretical, but also part of his personality. But I do have some reservations. At 39:35 he talks about John Stuart Mill, who, notwithstanding his noble aspiration, would not be able to live on equal terms with his wife. Well, for ages homosexuality has been a no-no, and still all the time there have been those relationships, because they were able to cover it up. His statement about the unpriviliged complaining about the rights of the priviliged which has to do in some miraculous way with the lack of insight in the history of loss, will probably resonate with the elite public here, but would be received with contemptuous mockery in left circles, and disappoints me so very much from him. It is clear that he has betrayed his left past, which always comes with rewards in the american culture, and obversely. If you want to give an oligarchy an easy time, then tell the people 1. You have to wait for the Redeemer, 2. all the bad you see is a projection, 3. loss is part of the game of life, and you should accept that, 4. if you can't empathize with them, that will keep them from empathizing with you. Do the three of you recognize that a corrupt elite in power can make life really really miserable for a lot of people. Wait till Trump becomes president again.
Well, the contemptuous mockery he'd receive from leftist circles speaks ill of them, not him. Time for leftists to stop earning the label "regressive left" from the likes of those from Dave Rubin to Ken Wilber, and grow up.
I don't agree with his suggestion that having dedicated numbers to call in case of micro agression is de facto saying to student they'll be victimized in some ways, how can he say that he wants to be able to create safe spaces for the women in his life when he's agaisnt concrete actions in favor for that? Having people to talk to is not celebrating self victimization! Rant over ill keep watching, might edit or add more.
Well (52:03), no you don't know the struggles of someone who went to the south pole, experienced WWI in the trenches under all the shelling, neither someone who finished a 3 day marathon with 1 hour of sleep! You can guess and somewhat 'understand'. Yet it would certainly be ridiculous to claim that you can sympathize on basis of fundamental feelings! The feelings may be the same! But the struggles are certainly very different and most certainly not understandable by fact of a common humanity (though feelings are expressed in a similar way)! That said, I am certainly not an an identity ideologist (or essential ist, for that matter) ! But to claim, that the mere fact that we have feelings ignores the cultural conditions of feelings, how the individual reacts and deals with perceived feelings, and measures it takes! Insofar the claim, that empathy is 'universal' or 'global' seems to be an academic dead end of a liberal kind whilst certainly rooted in Marxism! Again, 'two sides of the same coin'!
It is crucial to be aware of the net cast upon us by identity politics. Transcending within does not always and immediately equal transcending without. As part of the process, we must be aware, we must learn to transcend societal nets, too.
And we have to be careful that when we “transcend without” we are not doing so by spiritually bypassing our moral responsibilities and abandoning our fellow humans and the plight for material justice
I personally have a huge interest in political philosophy and sociology. This podcast has been doing a great job of meeting my needs with its coverage of religious philosophy and now also political philosophy?!! I couldn’t be more content with this episode! ❤️❤❤
Thumbs up for the topic alone.
Identity politics is currently being driven be narcissim, individualism, duality and anthropocentrism and that doesn't bode well for the planet and people who are not narcissists, which is most of us
👋 Narcissism is on a spectrum, dear one. Everyone has at least a small amount of Narcissism. ❤😂
Chill out
That’s the same attitude that drives the extremism you’re critiquing
Be sober with your criticism
Your conversations amaze me, your graceful articulation and flow. How do you stay so still? This one slices right through to the core.
Identity politics is a reaction to systemwide breakdown. I see it in the high school kids, and it's a reaction to the innate knowledge things are getting worse, but not knowing how to fix it. Because it's too hard to fix.
A shift in perspective is far from being unachievable, it's just that there are too many idiots dominating the general discourse surrounding these issues, the useful knowledge and understanding isn't getting out there and harmful misconceptions and lies keep spreading like wildfire.
I was just thinking about this very tension that always exists between the individual and the universal. We fall off the beam when we can't see our common humanity while we also enjoy our individuality as well as our particular associations (religious, community, heritage, etc.)
Also I have the experience from moving from an oppressed minority group in the US to a privileged position in life. I have come to realize that how we typify these experiences is in some ways -- not all ways -- false. When I was in an oppressed group (both my parents were foreign born, had accents, dressed a little differently and I grew up in a very WASPy town -- there was open prejudice expressed) I had an extremely stable family and a modest but all I needed life. But as I moved into a more privileged position in society I experienced significant sexual harassment, a chronic illness, the mental illnesses of a close family member and other personal traumas. Well, let's just say my newfound privilege was not all it was cracked-up to be. Suffering is universal and I never make assumptions that someone is exempt from suffering. Reaching out to someone suffering is how we bond. WHICH does not mean I don't see that our society has real problems with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Essentially I believe that personalism is the way out: there is not a single person that does have a unique story but that there will also always be points of connection because we share the human condition.
I enjoy working for social justice on a variety of fronts but also how seeing how none us fit neatly into categories.
I'm making one last comment here. I am not going to comment on this anymore.
What is more narcissistic than an ex president who refused to concede defeat and nearly staged a coup(e?)
If you search online I'm sure you can find film clips from the 1950s. Rock and roll was just becoming popular. I remember a fiery speech by a white possibly official, or possibly just a klansman, or both, predicting the downfall of American society because of the introduction of rock music. He predicted that rock music would lead to widespread miscegenation and therefore the whole country would fall apart.
This fear of institutional destruction must be some type of archetype, because that's often the response in multiple arenas when there is a challenge to the way things have been. Multiple churches have responded to charges of sexual abuse by its clerical staff by counter-charging 'You are trying to destroy our church." Or with gay marriage "You're making a mockeru of marriage." So my question is why is that?
Why is a call for change often conflated with institutional destruction? As I see it, the only thing different between now and say the 1950s (which people seem to be absolutely in love with that's some sort of golden age).... is that the identity politics favored the people who have historically been in charge. Everyone black everyone Brown everyone Asian Every Woman knew that identity was active and absolutely instrumental and how their lives ran. The only people who didn't think that were white guys who truly believed hat everything they had, did, or were involved with, was merit-based.
I would argue that this argument that's being presented here it's being presented as an either/or proposition, as unecessarily dualistic.
Identity awareness does not mean that one is necessarily narcissistic. It also doesn't mean that one is unable to empathize with other people.
Ask someone who has to continually analyze current events Etc from multiple lenses, much of this serms like an intellectual workaround for people in historically dominant groups.
In order to have a society that is inclusive for all people and gives all groups, the majority and the minority, access to the good things in life, both sides or multiple sides are going to have to do internal work. That is what I don't see happening. I don't see groups of white people getting together for groups to talk about how they were raised around race. I don't see groups of men getting together to talk about how they were raised around issues around of gender. What I see is this centrist position coming from groups who have been socially dominant. " If it doesn't support me! If I can't do exactly what I want, or what my father was able to do when he was my age, then we are headed for destruction." That's not the intent.
'Finally, given that women are 50 percent usually of the population globally, and that people of color are at least 80% of the population globally, I find it interesting that these movements are not considered universal. Because usually what those groups are asking for are things that benefit human beings across the board. I am so disgusted with all of this.
❤❤❤
Often the meaning of a word is within the word used to describe the meaning.
Under
Stand
To accept the proposition is superior to you current cognition and to position yourself as a supplicant would to a teacher.
❤
The basis of identity politics is prejudice. Prejudice that all people from a minority think or should think the same. That belonging to a group defines you. It is not focused in what every humans share and rationality. Rationality is the only thing in comum between man. Everything must be considerated with rationality, not individual experience and particular feelings. Particular emotions and experiences divides us.
We can make the law equal to everyone. But we can't change culture by force through a "just" discrimination. Like there is a correct and a wrong kind of discrimination. Things will get better slowly. We shouldn't want to change the world in a few decades. If we start seeing us as equals and share existence together, the world will improve.
Agreed
Withhold judgement of Others as much and as long as utterly possible because the moment You decide of a judgement of anothers identity, You'll always be wrong pidgion holing People, because Everyone is truly unique.
The same is true for Oneself, if the identity is anything that is superficial or subject to change.
Ego, (ego-mind-thought) is the illusion at the root of all identity, up to but excluding, the realization of One's true Self.
The true Self is unchanging, eternal, Spirit.
Universalism, if I understand the concept correctly, is a quality that's wise and noble to pursue, in that;
'What's good for All is good for Self, but what's good for Self may not be good for All.'
May All be well.
I like the gentleman very much, and it is clear that his take on universalism is not just something theoretical, but also part of his personality. But I do have some reservations.
At 39:35 he talks about John Stuart Mill, who, notwithstanding his noble aspiration, would not be able to live on equal terms with his wife. Well, for ages homosexuality has been a no-no, and still all the time there have been those relationships, because they were able to cover it up.
His statement about the unpriviliged complaining about the rights of the priviliged which has to do in some miraculous way with the lack of insight in the history of loss, will probably resonate with the elite public here, but would be received with contemptuous mockery in left circles, and disappoints me so very much from him. It is clear that he has betrayed his left past, which always comes with rewards in the american culture, and obversely. If you want to give an oligarchy an easy time, then tell the people 1. You have to wait for the Redeemer, 2. all the bad you see is a projection, 3. loss is part of the game of life, and you should accept that, 4. if you can't empathize with them, that will keep them from empathizing with you.
Do the three of you recognize that a corrupt elite in power can make life really really miserable for a lot of people. Wait till Trump becomes president again.
Well, the contemptuous mockery he'd receive from leftist circles speaks ill of them, not him. Time for leftists to stop earning the label "regressive left" from the likes of those from Dave Rubin to Ken Wilber, and grow up.
What makes you so sure the oligarchy could ever have an easy time?
I don't agree with his suggestion that having dedicated numbers to call in case of micro agression is de facto saying to student they'll be victimized in some ways, how can he say that he wants to be able to create safe spaces for the women in his life when he's agaisnt concrete actions in favor for that? Having people to talk to is not celebrating self victimization! Rant over ill keep watching, might edit or add more.
Well (52:03), no you don't know the struggles of someone who went to the south pole, experienced WWI in the trenches under all the shelling, neither someone who finished a 3 day marathon with 1 hour of sleep! You can guess and somewhat 'understand'. Yet it would certainly be ridiculous to claim that you can sympathize on basis of fundamental feelings! The feelings may be the same! But the struggles are certainly very different and most certainly not understandable by fact of a common humanity (though feelings are expressed in a similar way)! That said, I am certainly not an an identity ideologist (or essential ist, for that matter) ! But to claim, that the mere fact that we have feelings ignores the cultural conditions of feelings, how the individual reacts and deals with perceived feelings, and measures it takes! Insofar the claim, that empathy is 'universal' or 'global' seems to be an academic dead end of a liberal kind whilst certainly rooted in Marxism! Again, 'two sides of the same coin'!
It is crucial to be aware of the net cast upon us by identity politics. Transcending within does not always and immediately equal transcending without. As part of the process, we must be aware, we must learn to transcend societal nets, too.
If transcending within = a fulfilled sense of self and existence, what would transcending without look like and having one without the other?
And we have to be careful that when we “transcend without” we are not doing so by spiritually bypassing our moral responsibilities and abandoning our fellow humans and the plight for material justice