Me too. Have you read Frithjof Schuon/Shaykh Isa Nur ud Din ? He's also very profound when it comes to criticizing modern ideologies.

MrBoogiePope shaykh abdal hakim murad too, probably the best at dissecting our miserable modern condition.

me 4

I don't know anyone, who is intellectual, that could be a Muslim. It's quite obviously a scarce of medival Syriac/Arabian heretical Christianity scoped and packaged as Islam.

@@kieran296 There's stuff on the floor of a truck stop bathroom that is less stupid and vile than you are. Leave the thinking to other persons, pinhead.

You're welcome. Glad you enjoy the videos.

Nope, I have not had the pleasure of meeting him.

Crysus Bu That's an interesting question actually.

Jerome Danner

Best comment :D

opprobrium?

@@ObjectiveBob yeah, seems like it, thank you!

​@@ObjectiveBob it seems that my other comment with transcription of this fragment was deleted. Was it mistake from my side to post it here? (I suppose also that there was some technical problem so it didn't show up, or it may be deleted by some kind of algorithm if there is one like that)

Gilbert Ryle

MINEIRO Yes, you’re right. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I’ll just continue to be dumb over in the corner here.

@@Domispitaletti yea but if you read marx his analysis of capitalism has him come to the exact same conclusions as hart.

Our mode of production necessarily instills us with purely materialistic and hedonistic values.

@@philip8802 "...if you read marx his analysis of capitalism has him come to the exact same conclusions as hart." : A fact which, notwithstanding, fails to render either thinker correct.

@@philip8802 "Our mode of production necessarily instills us with purely materialistic and hedonistic values." (1) Yet Marx's idea of the material productive forces (the tools and machines) as the first cause of human ideas has it backwards: Tools and machines are the result of ideas. If anything, cause/effect runs in the contrary direction: human desires of materialism and hedonism inform producers, who fashion the machines and tools to satisfy those desires. (2) That being said, however, I would agree that consumerism is partly a function of a populace inundated with marketing and advertising. However, I say, human nature is such as never knowing when to say when. This isn't a problem of the economic system. Humans, it seems, in general take the easiest path possible. If we lived in a communist system, people would be clamoring to join the Party in order to get all the goodies stolen from the impoverished population. As well, the USSR and East Germany had all kinds of problems incentivizing people to work and to follow the great plan, and so by necessity had to maintain a vast system of secret police and surveillance, and induce people to work under the threat of violence. I don't know about you, but I'll take somebody else's consumerism over everybody's systematic surveillance and being violently coerced any day. (3) "Purely"? Surely, marketing and advertising exercise some influence---great in some, very little in others, and shades in between for the majority. But you say this results in a populace with PURELY materialistic and hedonistic values? However, you for one are an exception to your own rule. So is everybody who attends a Sunday church service. And, again, I say that hedonism mostly isn't a function of the economic system---but of human nature itself. (4) You're missing a key element here: fractional reserve banking. This (now global) institution sustains artificially low interest rates, causing the supply of money to grow, both of which in turn erode the value of the monetary unit and place a governor on the incentive to save and invest, and instead encourage spending and consumption. This institution is purely a function of bureaucracy, and is entirely unnecessary to a healthy economy (indeed is antithetical to one). I don't expect you to either agree or understand this argument without learning a great deal more about it, but it nonetheless is a major contributor to the erosion of cultural norms and practices of delaying gratification. Back in the day, for instance, one could buy a War Bond and get 6% interest. Compare that to 1% today. (Or some such, I don't know the exact numbers). But that was when the dollar was backed legally by gold (in principle at least), which since 1933 and finally in 1971 came to an end. Ever since, the government has had no systemic barriers to monetary manipulations and debt monetization. The value of the monetary unit---and the incentive to save---has fallen commensurately. And, to repeat, fractional reserve banking is wholly a (unnecessary and, indeed, detrimental) function of government, not capitalism. (5) Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the mass of humanity lived in pervasive poverty, want, and disease---generation after generation. Capitalism has its faults, but plentiful and progressively higher quality food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and sanitation aren't it. Socialism, by way of contrast, has all these problems plus a whole lot more, irrespective of the good intentions of (most of) its proponents.

Capitalism and Marxism are both based on the mechanistic philosophical model.

No it's not total shit. Sam Harris' app is total shit, and he has demystified a beautiful religion and distilled it into a series of mindfulness exercises for idiots like you to gawk over. You clearly don't know Sam's work; Sam has the attitude enshrined by Hart's quote, which you also misunderstand in taking it as a discrete claim that he's saying each new Atheist has literally made. No, that's not the point, tho it may be for someone like Dawkins. Sam has a dismissive and illiterate attitude towards the aspects of religion that claim transcendence and a belief that their benefits to the human being can be reduced to physiological psychologism in a way that treats the vehement and venerable claims made by actual Buddhists in the East about the reality of their spiritual exercise as little more than dispensing gibberish and justifies in his mind the appropriation of centuries old mystical practices into a west-corrupted self-help routine. No, no, no. Your shamefully, pathetically, embarrassingly ignorant comment about Sam having somehow "extracted all that is useful from buddhism and PUT IT IN AN APP! 🎉😂😊" is proof of the very concept Hart elucidates. Really? You think the entire tradition was doomed to its fate of use by superstitious Neanderthals before Sam "man of science" Harris heroically separated the objectively useful from the objectively useless? Ah, yes. The neuroscience media influencer with an iPhone app knows more about the benefits of a centuries old tradition bc SSSSHHIIENCE!! than the actual individuals whose people have for countless generations lived and breathed it. No, no, and no. His separations - and your hilariously retarded faith in them - are arbitrary, and by doing all that I've unpacked him doing to the tradition, he has treated the East in the condescending way implied by Hart's quote. "I know you guys have cultivated these meditative practices over hundreds and hundreds of years of tradition, meditation, and refinement, amf i know that so much of who and what your ethos is revolves around this tradition, but I am a scientist, so step aside and let me show you how actually useless so much of what you do is and how the few useful parts aren't even useful for the reasons you think, but the reasons I'll show you. I know better than you." ^ takes a child's brain to spot this, dude. Additionally, there is nothing inherently "Eastern" about his worldview, especially not Buddhist. How can you say such a thing without slicing the tongue out of your mouth to prevent such an ignorant and depressing comment from ever escaping your lips again? I shall never know the strength it must take to be so hopelessly unintelligent and yet so determined to continue drawing breath daily. Outside of that, tho, Sam Harris is a moron. He couldn't even follow a consistent line of argumentation in a debate with a mind as third rate and mediocre as William Lane Craig, making himself look mortifyingly out of his element in their rudimentary discussion on the metaphysics of morality only to sell a 100 thousand more books to idiots like you who, in reading them, have been so deprived of good intellectual nourishment for so long that you confuse dirty excrement with culinary delight. To hell with you and your thoughts. Burn them away and try anew

I agree with Sean's well written reply to this video. The reason we have the opportunity comes from only one entity, and it is our personal choice to build a culture where companies thrive or they die. Leadership, a personal choice, teamwork to build capital in a company, is a personal choice of each individual. If you can go into the desert, it's where deep change happens for a person. If you can't change your paradigm in how you see opportunities in business and in life, you will run out of water (money)!(Edit I)

Nobody's going to read nine inches of tripe, moron. Sorry.

@@chanting_germ. What relationship, exactly, has been "well established"? For, if you say Mr. Hitchens is a socialist (which I myself have come to believe of him, subsequent to my original post), this yet doesn't square the circle. The problem remains: Does Mr. Hitchens believe an impulse to acquisitiveness, by participants in capitalism, inheres in capitalism qua economic stystem, or are the two separable, according to him? In other words, what is he protesting, the fact of acquisitiveness, or the fact of capitalism? And what, according to him, meets the standard of being "acquisitive," anyhow? Because he, being a socialist no less, nevertheless himself lives according to a private property ethic. Of course, he would protest that his is no "acquisitiveness," to be sure. In sum, whatever truths are to be found in his presentation of these matters are in no way self-evident. Indeed, Mr. Hitchens appears to me---like so many socialists do---to rely on the fact of ambiguous argumentation, and mere moral posturing, to make his as-yet-groundless point, which is---no doubt---ultimately that socialism is the great panacea to our human material condition. But on this point he couldn't be more wrong.

@Sean Kennedy If 'capitalism,' here, connotes alienable, fee-simple property with absentee tenure, the 'distinction' is superfluous. Any property norms, mediated through the cash nexus, serve ONLY to cultivate the most acquisitive impulses. Caught in that sphere, consociation is tainted by a preening sense of 'mutuality' that barely conceals a meanspirited proclivity for acquisition. Hart's Kropotkinian brand of usufruct differs qualitatively from the quid pro quo of exchange & avoids the latent impersonality of trade & insatiable appetite for gain.

Its an educated upper-middle class Baltimore accent.Think Hannibal Lecter, without the killing and cannibalism

I'd ask for your money back, lady.

He's incredibly articulate. Are you kidding?

Oxycotton fabricates desire, nicotine fabricates desire, plastic surgery fabricates desire, logos and brands fabricate desire.