GREAT EXPLAINATION. I'm adding this to my favorites, thanks ❤❤❤

And that's why an open mind (limited as it is), lifelong education, a critical approach, and conversations with others can only help. No absolutes here.

Lippmann's genius was to understand the effects of industrialization and, as he demonstrates in "The Good Society", the division of labor. If you're not commenting on that element of his thought, then you've missed his point. The division of labor, acc. to Lippmann, eliminated the self-sufficing, rugged individualist, making each intertwined into a global capitalist order. Our framers, as you suggest could not understand such globalism. They were geniuses and they understood how factions could tear a society apart, but they were wrong about some mutual interest ultimately overwhelming those whose goal was merely power. Division of labor atomized society too extremely for a Madisonian framework. Those who wished power preyed on the interests of minority factions to gain control; and the leaders of those minority factions found they could benefit sufficiently to play along. It took 200 years, but they have destroyed the Constitutional framework and taken control. BTW John Dewey is culprit in the crime.

I would love to hear something about Richard Rorty

The Dewey "take" on democracy seems highly conceptual, idealistic (therefore unrealistic), and to rest on a view of the "engaged citizen" that is simply not brought to fruition in the lives of most. Our culture, as an envelopiing and shaping "surround," makes it extremely hard for any citizen to be adequately focused on the "uncommitted" or "neutral" learning that is necessary to achieve full and dispassionate knowledge--of history, of current events, of one's own psychologic capacity and shortcomings. In this respect, Lippmann seems to be, in the concept of the "pseudo-environment," to be very, very much closer to correctly understanding the almost insurmountable challenges of achieving dispassionate knowledge. There's some disparagement in here of the Platonic take on forms of governance--but if you accept the fundamental unlikelihood of achieving real understanding, he was accurately reflecting the real difficulties--even in the 4th century BCE--of a citizen's being able to attain adequate clarity of information and interpretation to properly take part in democratic processes. And Plato sketched out what it would take, in his extended boot-camp for candidates! Just becoming a guard-dog was difficult enough, and to reach "philosopher" (in a world where sophistry constantly beckoned and subverted) was nearly impossible. That's how high the bar really is, and I think Lippmann was much more realistic about the prospects of success--and the dire consequences of failure for democratic governance--than was the (ironically UNpragmatic) Dewey...

Grateful that you have been putting out episodes. I needed my philosophy fix and I was having to go down the street and I’ll tell ya they are selling that straight boo boo. Thanks for wanting to teach more than you did yesterday. I always enjoy the show!

Really well written and read!

Gratitude 🙏

Thank you for this great video!

good episode thanks

thanks for this, love the channel

Ok it has been so many episodes in such a short period. I am so happy. Thank you so much!

Dig IT!

Jeez. This whole nature/nurture, individual/collective, slow change/fast change stuff is like the basis for the right and left -isms.

Interesting piece - thanks. (I was getting a bit Deleuzed-out before ) |-)

Phenomenal

Do Ranciére! He thinks Plato hated democracy

Where can I find your t-shirts?

This cat sounds like a young Joe Rogan

That slippery-slope of emotional responses to dissociated data of random wierd shit? That cacophany JUST MIGHT be the hyperrationally correct response/(solution?) to the problem!--ever check out the craziness of massively iterated simple rules?

I don't see a limited data set as a stereotype. I define a stereotype as a dogmatic retaining of an assumption of something based upon a limited data set that one chooses to hold onto even when presented with new data because it satisfies a bias. Maybe it's because I'm autistic, or the town that I'm from, but I've never known democracy in any aspect of life. Ethical ideals don't exist. Equality doesn't exist. Parasitism is technically a form of symbiosis. Democrats may have believed in equality at one time, but the current generation does not. I find that ridiculous to even claim. I see that buying into democracy as more of a tool to stop people from destroying it. If you see yourself as owning something, you're probably going to want to preserve it. I'm not actually a full member of society. I'm treated as a sub human animal, and paid as much as a child. Enough to survive, but not enough to be able to afford children. Maybe if I was part of society I might agree with a lot of this guys claims. Having experienced being in the bottom 20% with three college degrees, no hope for better work, and being 40 years of age, I see myself as no longer relevant to society. I could effectively be thrown away to live on the street, and nothing would change. Younger people are already discriminating against me. Try having a manager who's younger than you are, has less experience, is dumber, and treats you with abuse and contempt, and you might not see our society as being so dandy as the rich dumb dumbs think it is. If someone is going to make universal statements, they need to actually be universal to everyone, not just idealistic rubbish that only applies to the rich.

How is democracy possible in class society? Lippmann given the ideology the capitalist class needs to justify its lip service to democracy. When democracy challenges the dominance of capital over society, history shows liberalism prefers fascism to socialist revolution. FYI: “‘Pure democracy’ is the mendacious phrase of a liberal who wants to fool the workers. History knows of bourgeois democracy which takes the place of feudalism, and of proletarian democracy which takes the place of bourgeois democracy. “When Kautsky devotes dozens of pages to ‘proving’ the truth that bourgeois democracy is progressive compared with medievalism, and that the proletariat must unfailingly utilize it in its struggle against the bourgeoisie, that in fact is just liberal twaddle intended to fool the workers.... “Bourgeois democracy, although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited and the poor” (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 28 [Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965], pp. 242-43). Quoted in WSWS: David North Perestroika versus Socialism: Stalinism and the Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR The Myth of “Pure” Democracy

Deweys views of society are soooo cheesy and boring

Society is an "organism"? How absurd. Utopian claptrap. This episode was vague blah blah blah WEAKNESS.

Magically recurring autoplay feature erodes your philosophocal credibility for me, what was that commercial i saw...?