No wonder Hume and Rousseau were friends with their living by passion, emotion etc. Then Hume found out what that life leads to when Rousseau went mental on him. I was hoping for a talk on a priori synthetic truth, but not happening I guess. Oh well. Still, good talk.

Thank you, Prof. Hicks I just saw Dugan talk to Tucker Carlson about an interesting talk. I can see were Dugan is coming from he lives in Russia. I guess he would look for a fourth way. Communism did not work, fascism was crushed. Well liberalism has taken a beating from WWI and WWII. Fascism was supposed to be the third way.

Who among Anglo-Saxons wasn't antisemitic? Just admit, all of the Europe and America were antisemitic. Hypocrites

"Ethnos" - Identify politics. How we know you well in the USA.

I like Steven he is great!

Studying for finals, very helpful video!

Heidegger is pretty much garbage.... as is a large portion of so called western philosophy. Just listening to people explain his Being and Time always cracks me up. The chirping of birds.... much more profound... and far less annoying imo.

Perhaps some people take an issue with a tribe claiming to be the chosen people of the creator of everything.

Übermensch 🫡

Nazism happened because of Jews.. Everyone knows this.

This is good content, I remember seeing this vid a while ago. However, I'm not sure I necessarily agree. I'm a fan of Zeihan on Geopolitics. Zeihan often implies and discusses how, many trajectories taken by countries fundamentally have to do with geographical realities, coming into contact with a few other variables (an equally important one of which is demography). I'm also interested in the fields of psychometrics, and behavioral genetics. Incidentally, it is my opinion that much of Nietzsche's genius involved an uncanny ability to approximately predict a surprising number of the findings in these fields, while nevertheless ironically limited in his perspective by factors contained within that very analysis. Namely, he certainly seems to have been a highly disagreeable genius-type, probably low in agreeableness. He seems to have been correct, that many immutable characteristics (unfortunately) have considerable bearing on the perennial 'contest' between/among individuals and groups. However, due to his own particular characteristics, he was not well equipped to adequately recognize that cooperation, and agreeableness, are ALSO adaptive mechanisms of a certain kind, for the ultimate perpetuation of the species. Returning to the variable of geographic and environmental influence on selection for certain human behaviors: Germany was not always a unified country (I cannot recall or summarize historical details in this case) and Zeihan has discussed how, ever since Germany became a unified country, many of the conflictual regional dynamics that we all recognize from the past one or more centuries, were already essentially 'baked in'. Germany's central location in Europe gives it a strategic advantage, which has been further emphasized historically, by its size and accompanying sizable population. It's rich in certain resources, but lacks others that its neighbors possess, and is nearly landlocked, so the picture starts to become clear as to why it's often suggested that to a significant extent, "geography is destiny". This description is a recipe for an aggressive, sizable regional power. Other dynamics of the kind that Professor Hicks discusses, are certainly relevant in my opinion. However, I would tend to argue that these are typically downstream of imposed geographic and environmental realities, and limitations. In other words, different abstract ideas may be circulating in a culture at any given time, and of course ideas are very important. But, why do some catch on more than others? It seems to me that those ideas most reflective of a population's material circumstances, will subsequently come to hold the most sway, in order to mobilize context-specific, group-level actions. Also, although genetics don't account for everything, (plus there's plenty of genetic variation within groups,) nevertheless environment can significantly account for the majority of a group's evolved (genetic) behavioral traits over a period of time. Although it's obviously somewhat uncouth to discuss humans a type of "animal" (outside of biological research) and of course, humans are such a complex animal that we must be for all intents and purposes, generally considered in a different category, still, the above observations seem much more obvious when applied to other animal species (of course conditions of privation, we recognize, tend to cause less aggressive or territorial members of a species to die off, and others to survive and pass on their genes). While Germany is hardly a harsh environment that leads to selection for particularly aggressive traits in the majority of the population, nevertheless, we can expect traits like agreeableness to be higher in cultures/populations that frequently come into contact with other groups via trade along accessible waterways (when trade is situationally advantageous over time) or whose land is hospitable to the cooperative venture of agriculture, etc. Germany might match some of these descriptors more than others, so there's some extent to which stereotypes (which can never be universally generalized without becoming misleading and discriminatory) might have some bearing and accuracy at the group level. In my opinion, the only hedge against moral relativism, involves the biological limiting parameters of the human species. Even for populations better genetically adapted to, for example, harsh desert environments and tribalist cultures, in those cases, the fact that neuroticism tends to be higher, involves increased physiological stress on the human organism. Therefore, it is by distinguishing micro-level and macro-level adaptations, that one can argue that certain behavioral predispositions and traits are ultimately more or less adaptive for humans. I'd argue that America has only retained the best ideas, because they 'took root' in the best land, and geography. The more a precedent can be established, and internationally exported, for nearly ideal society and governance under nearly ideal conditions, the greater the health of the entire species.

Yuman naych@ b a pyramid scheme😂

Ha I remember watching this on Netflix a lifetime ago!

1 view in one minute bro fell off

In general sex dolls and robots are for men, so not a good thumbnail picture.

Gnosticism has taken over everywhere

36:56 and a few minutes after that. Notice the "smuggling" in of Popper's Trial and Error approach. This is a late (!) invention of the enlightenment, if you take the propositional form of ideas serisously. [Peacemeal-Engineering, instead of a holistic perspective!] Furthermore, notice the ambiguous way, in which the english word "reasoning" is used. It can mean, both, to reason AND TALK, or to use those faculties of reason, which are reserved to whst Kant and Schopenhauer called: "Urteilskraft", which is the ability to judge, and which us independent of your ability to talk, although it is, often, highly linked, and intuitively associated with each other, which is wrong, yb the way.

The Nazis never achieved a majority of sets in parliament in free elections...

Sometimes in podcasts the guest ends up talking too much and the interviewer needs to wrestle back control. With Dr. Hicks on the other hand, it's like, nah, go man go. Everything he says is both understandable and important

I'm just here to recommend today's Michael Shellenberger presentation on the University of Austin channel, which ties in with several of my comments on recent CEE vids.

This was a great lecture, I normally don't sit all the way through something almost 2 hours long. Does anyone know where one could find an image of "The Model's Reaction"? That's a great painting.

Much closer to Lyotard, etc, than I'd realised.

Stephen Hicks is a true intellectual, but devalues his capabilities by appearing on these lame interviews; I did not see one spec of real intelligence, insight or forethought from the interviewer in taking on this complex and 'charged' topic. There was the standard babble on 'left' and 'right' positions but no real assimilation of his insights on how Kant can be critiqued from both sides of the debate - or how and why the word 'liberal' has become anathema some circles in the US. ...At some late point the show descended into 'secret societies' and AI Bots but it was too late for me to switch off and not be disgusted at the quality of this intellectual discourse

I once read a published account of Heidegger's attempted suicide after the war, I haven't been able to find it again, I believe it was in a psychoanalytic volume. If anyone knows of this piece, please share the details.

30:49 is called evolution but not by natural selection but by humans desire of a perfect social dynamics where the philosophers labels the idea and intellectuals groups keep working in them, from Plato and Aristotle to 2024 their ideas had become a different specie; evolution. 😂

The constitution was destroyed under the Wilson administration. Lol

While Nietzsche was indeed a brilliant philosopher, he was also clearly a top level narcissist.

👍

Excellent historical summary of philosophical underpinnings of slices of modern politics.

“I’m a child of the enlightenment.”

Absolutely educational, endless thanks, Courtenay and Stephen. Learned a lot. It encourages to dive into the history of ideas.

As a rational person I have to express my love for the Enlightenment. 😄

Why do so many women "smirk" during serious discussion and debate? Makes me cringe.

I'm much more worried about the violent irrational trend toward Endarkenment.

Thank you for posting this detailed interview with Dr. Hicks.

Self responsible people do not always seek expert decisions. In fact, experts are often wrong because the expertise assigned to those individual are very exceedingly biased and in many cases, are driven by factors that are well beyond what individual freedom represents.

Moral arguments have nothing to do with who has the better wisdom. You are completely missing the essence of individual freedom. Very smart people make very stupid mistakes and very dumb people can make some very smart decisions.

This is a very simple logical argument and doesn't really need a 2 sided perspective. The simple and clear fact that the government's role is protect individual right to live and be free is the only measure required. There is no government view needed due to the fact that preventing something a person willfully chooses to take is an automatic violation of his rights. If at any point that person commits some heinous act against another is the only time when government should be realized as some arbiter.

Excellent documentary. Worth watching again. The determination of loyalists to Heidegger to see his connection to N€zism as nothing more than a “mistake” or “personal failure” continues. See: Heidegger, German Idealism, & the Fate of Philosophy with Dr. Robert Pippin kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mryUiaxhmrjFaI0.html - What is the Heideggerian Dasein of the German regime from 1933-1945 and its most notorious actions? This seems to be of little concern to Heidegger, who had plenty of time to consider the issue and give his opinion, except to indicate his support for what they “started” but couldn’t fulfill as shown in the 1966 Der Speigel interview. He was a frustrated willing collaborator.

Audio 😍BOOKS 😪

Imo this is the most important philosophical concept in accordance to life and nature.

I hope everyone listening to this realizes that this is a “Personal view” and not a history verbatim. Please do your research because some of the information in this book is false and are the author’s opinions. This is the author view on history not the actual history of how things happen.

Would a view that work is dirty or shameful indicate a mind body dichotomy that hasn’t integrated the practical necessities of man’s life?

Free societies in the west controlled by rich foreign interests, powerful international lobbyists and an everlasting war weapons barons. This is worse than the East.

I wonder how she would feel about feminists championing drag shows where exhibitionist acts are performed in front of children. Also, wasn’t it Dworkin who claimed all intercourse (even consensual) was “r*pe”. Seems unhinged

The porn industry needs to be better regulated, I think that's pretty uncontroversial. However, should the minority subset of women high in sociosexuality, someone like Aella, be legally permitted in a free society to do things like porn? Yes, there's free society on the one hand, and there's functional society on the other hand, we obviously want both. I'm not exactly knowledgeable enough to compare/contrast how, for example the Netherlands (Amsterdam) handles this kind of problem, more or less effectively than for example the US or UK. But, (for the most part in the Anglosphere,) we allow certain kinds of drugs to be bought and sold, but do not allow "open drug scenes" (except recently, in woke dystopian downtown urban areas). We allow certain kinds of sexual transactions, but do not allow public prostitution, or sex trafficking. Also, I just heard Jonathan Haidt discuss in relation to regulating (or not regulating) smartphone usage for early adolescents, how children are a different case from adults in various ways. Haidt says, the cases where even Libertarians tend to agree that lines should be drawn legally, for restricting materials and activities available to children, involve sexual content and addiction (developing brains are different, we cannot have responsible, mature citizens, if they are psychobehaviorally damaged during adolescence). Personally, I'm mostly a consequentialist, pretty much Civil Libertarian, mostly Classical Liberal, and approximately a centrist. And, I think there's one important caveat, related to Haidt's summation: I think things involving sex and sexual content, and also PHYSICAL addiction, should not legally be available to children. Although neuroscience shows that lots of influences, can "nudge" people of all ages, and therefore that SOME of what the social constructivists say, has SOME validity, these observations do not constitute a justification for restricting all content, or suspending all liberties. I maintain that the ultimate defense for a free and liberal society, is that the public sphere is its own laboratory, and involves a massive experiment that's being run all the time. This includes the way in which formal education is 'administered,' as one important variable. The truth is, assuming the ultimate arbiters are human health, and replicable empirical observation, while Nietzsche and the pragmatists respectively, were wrong about which methods work best at the macro-level of society, and the micro-level of formal education, nevertheless their fundamental observations about humans and behavior, are largely being proved correct. Blank slate is wrong, the existence of "individuals" on the traditional definition is wrong, and Sapolsky and others explain how determinism is essentially being proved correct. So, why should we not all become Nietzschean pragmatists? In what sense is Classical Liberalism still defensible? Well another question is: since blank slate was disproven, should we have immediately adopted a "guilty until proven innocent" legal precedent, whereby all defendants are convicted or not, based primarily on immutable characteristics? The ultimate question to address this predicament is: what is philosophy? Answers might differ, but if it's essentially: the most adaptive set of heuristics by which people typically engage with the world, and also seek to develop and maintain a functional society, then Classical Liberalism is entirely defensible. Liberalism's claims cannot be proven literally correct, in a neuroscience research lab, just the opposite. But, as a set of adaptive heuristics, there's hardly any argument to be made AGAINST Liberalism. I'm not a philosopher, not sure if I have this part exactly right, but it seems to me that (perhaps strangely,) it's effectively been through the process of proving Liberalism's epistemology to be false, that we've proven its ontology to be all the more accurate, and have thereby ultimately strengthened the paradigm.