Відео

Thank you. There are many biased interpretations here, which is ironic considering Duey taught to suspend all biases and dogmas to deal with the problem. Kant said don't use people as a means to an end but as an end. Nietzsche then inverted it ( to play the antichrist) to mean using people as a means to an end. A lot more focus should be given to Hegel, thesis, antithesis, synthesis, and trinity, which both Duey and Marx highly borrowed from ( both were former Helgalians). Religion is community-based; Hegel used this as a collective spirit ( to oppose Kant, which is the thing in itself that can't be explained ). Duey is also using a philosophical version of the religious archetype of community. It's important to note that Hegel used it to go along with the German government > Hegel thought Germans to be of superior minds. He believed he had reached the absolute truth. Duey did not go along with the German system of education, nor Plato, where he sorted through the forms to see which students best fit certain forms. Ending with his philosophy, the king in his Republic is much more educated than a democratic one from the Duey education system. Just go on social media today; it is a schizoid sideshow attacking like a virus, thinking they are wise. Marx encouraged everyone to critically challenge everything (Hegel's negation) to start a revolution, while Duey used thinking as a reflection for a peaceful resolution. ( synthesis) Nietzsche used individuality as an antichrist to oppose religion and community. To understand Duey, we must first understand Hegel. It does significant damage to say that it is dead in literature. That's a Nietzsche psychosis. If one understands the great literature books, their archetype and symbols, they are about real life.

Here we see Trump. He and his few cronies are going to express the will and conscience of the people. 😂 well those they can manipulate by seducing them with a few crumbs at first followed quickly with false promises of Trust me im your saviour be patient and its going to be really great at some future date. And a few lies that it already is quite great.😂 Then if he lives long enough it might be to declare war on Mexico if he could fulfill that dream.

This Hicks guy is not a philosopher but just a spin doctor, a spokesperson employed to give a favourable interpretation of events to the media, especially on behalf of the guys who pay him. That is why people hate intelectualls not because, as he says at 6:40 because they think instead of following orders.

2 minutes in and the problem that needs to be discussed is that DEI offices use divisive language and somehow are acquiring too much power and control over institutions. Will I hear an example of what language is so divisive? (Edit: no I won't. DEI is somehow dividing individuals into groups. That seems like an oxymoron produced by people exercising thoughts without thinking) All I've ever encountered is training to not be an asshole in the work place so that the business can get the most value out of everyone's labor regardless of background.

SCIENCE is the most destructive religion ever invented by human race, especially because of its enormous practical applicability, hece the power to convince, its destructiveness is far more difficult to comprehend and/or counter. All speculations about the origin of the universe (in fact, all assumptions of existences whatsoever, especially particles, rather) MUST be linked to deriving the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth's core develop PLANTS on its own surface, to then deliver and sustain living beings here through them. A process that happens billions of times every single day, hence requires NO special experiments of any type whatsoever or observations other than what any lay person could make in own backyards (valid even for any homeless person, because PLANTS are found everywhere). This only demands the readiness to theoretically link the interdependant functions of the 3 entities (PLANTS ANIMALS and HUMANS) to the internal functions of the earth after interpreting DIGITS as unique types of particles with the 4 basic arithmetic operations as the only natural LAWS OF MOTION for all interactions among them. Thus substituting Bohr's anthropocentric correspondence requirement with real particle physical correspondence between calculations inside human MIND and the interactions of particles (= MATTER) inside the CORE OF THE EARTH that composes and delivers it daily, even just now ~ rendering thereby also the assumption of evolution as a historic process superfluous, while in addition making verification of all involved assumptions by any lay person practically possible, by application of the mathematical model so derived, of how PLANTS grow, in day - to - day practice. All hitherto human search for knowledge by describing "how uncontrollable by us forces move celestial bodies?" and "why apples fall?" is a totally misguided exercise, irrelevant for sustenance of life on this earth. What we need is "HOW APPLES GROW?" and "what controllable by us particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS to deliver and sustain living beings here through them?". This earth is the ONLY BODIES MANUFACTURING VESSEL IN THE ENTIRE KNOWN UNIVERSE and it has to be seen and analyzed as such, the Copernican blunder notwithstanding. All celestial motions must be derivable as functions of such particle interactions inside the earth, once we link them to interactions there and subsequent development of, and growth on, PLANTS, if (and only if) it ~ such explanstion ~ becomes necessary to sustain life function. It is immaterial whether the answers to a question is factually correct or wrong so long as the question itself is totally irrelevant for sustenance of life on this earth. Not realizing this fact is the reason why the human race in its entire history, from antiquity to present day, from Thales of Miletus to Stephen Hawking and still continuing, has failed to derive the mathematical model of even a single natural phenomenon that could PREDICT accurately when it may harm life function, let alone PREVENT such, or at the least guarantee that the laws science invents (yes!) won't cause new harms in addition, which in fact is the case at present, with WEAPONS MANUFACTURE being its raison de ètre and the widespread pollution it causes all over. The single purpose cum criterion of proof of all search for knowledge MUST be: PRACTICAL PREVENTION OF ALL EVIL (defined exhaustively as DISASTERS, PREDATIPN, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH), which would all be possible with the PLANT growth model. Dumping the baby with the bathwater would have been a better exercise compared to what Copernicus did: He dumped the baby (GEOCENTRISM) and drank the bathwater (the FAITH that uncontrollable by us celestial forces control all events in the universe IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT WE OURSELVES DO IN IT ~ the fatalistically slavish faith science shares with all the conventional religions it is supposed to have discarded).

Understanding why the Nazi’s did that is of importance to me personally. May it never happen again. RIP. Not sold on FN to blame for them. Open to change my mind that is for sure. Cannot wait to listen.

Great video. I can honestly relate to Mrs. MacDonald so hard, in my best years I have the same attitude against those who try and hold me down; the struggle is happiness enough, refusing to back down is reward enough.

Little mustache man wasn’t as bad as this book portrayed

We need our uncle to return.

"Make America Great"- Benito Mussolini- 1927 Brooklyn speech at the American-Nazi Bund.

Mao said Russia and America are both white they're both bullies. I don't think communism teaches that i think that's Nazism.

Dr. Hicks, I quite enjoyed your talk. I advocate for a stronger distinction between “immortality,” which typically connotes an involuntary invulnerability to death, and “indefinite lifespan,” which more clearly connotes the scenarios you discuss here. We may in fact be in the first generation where lifespan increases faster than years lived, but that will not abolish other causes of death including murder, war, privation, accident, and the voluntary choice to end one’s life. I would definitely like to hear more in-depth discussion of the ethics around the increasingly likely possibility that at least some of us may get to live, if not millions, but possibly hundreds of years past humankind’s historic lifespan.

That was excellent! I’m going to give you my humble opinion; this short concise explanation, of the political and social spectrum, of “right and left collectivist socialism” is the best I’ve heard and read. It encapsulates and delineates the essence of individualism and classical liberalism juxtaposed to the collectivist.

Universalism has been a curse to the human race.

Excellent concise explanation. All were Marxist, at their origin, including their economic philosopher: the syndicalist George Sorel.

Why duz my childhood spent in front of TV, watching Grasshopper on Kung Fu, keep bubblink2consconciousness?🤔

Passive or active. Yin or yang. Mommy or daddy. We apes prefer limited choices😂

I think a Buddhist perspective on the self is important here. If we don't have a Rock Hard Cogito, and accept that the character our self changes as the content changes (as things are learned and forgotten), then the person I would have become after mere thousands of years, let alone millions, would be so radically different from the person I am now, that the question of personal survival begins to dissolve. Similarly, the universe and the human role in it would be changing, so that would also produce novelty. You could go be a con-man in the andromeda Galaxy. Great content!

Can't wait until Hicks picks up a history book and discovers that the "beautiful" Gothic cathedrals of the Middle Ages were considered ugly by the rational, educated elite of the 1700s. A Frenchman, René Rapin, writing in the 17th century, said that the "Goths" (architects in the Gothic manner) “suffered their Wits to ramble in the Romantic way.” This was not praise. "Romantic" at this time meant capricious, foolhardy, untruthful, incoherent, disproportionate. For Rapin, "“Art is good Sense reduc’d to Method”. The "good Sense" and the "Method" were, of course, wholly subjective and changeable with time and class, and the way the Enlightenment saw it, Gothic art failed at both. Nowadays, this is a preposterous claim. The Gothic cathedrals are among the monuments most beloved by ordinary people: millions of tourists go to France to admire them. But it took the critics and artists of the 19th century to reevaluate the worth of the Gothic style we all admire nowadays. "Intelligent" people with "good taste" had to be trained to appreciate it. What's infuriating about people like Hicks, who have no historical training in the subjects they prat about, is that they assume the whole of the past shared a uniform idea of what the "beautiful" was. For him and his ilk it's unthinkable, unconceivable, that in 2000 years of European art there were changes in taste and that art styles we now admire may have been despised by spurious reasons. This is all to say modern art is fine, it's not ugly; it's merely different from certain, rigid standards of taste. What's now jarring and grating may in time become normal. It's awkward that Hicks' taste stagnated in the 1700s. That's hardly an "expert" I'd want to give me lessons about the arts.

Orwell's review of Dickens is worth a look, too.

What an appalling caricature of Dugins thought this lecture is, Hicks comes across as a first year undergraduate way out of his depth

Second time watcher, I loved it.

Why does dugin copy the West? Can't come up with a actual Russian philosophy?

I like Heidegger. I found dugin more comical than anything.

Why am I listening to mediated Dugin as if I can't read the original?

I think it is fascinating that in Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 is ambiguous and can be translated as "when God began to create. the heavens and earth were formless and void" or "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". So both of these views are possibilities. However, the formalist view is more likely in my opinion. It is a little disturbing, to leave the origin of the chaos unexplained. It almost seems like chaos is presented as a brute fact. Possibly Genesis is like the other creation myths--it starts with the chaotic waters, what is important to the author is Who brought order? Who now is to maintain this order and keep chaos at bay?

That's a funny argument because most of the drop out art students with mental and physical disabilities nowadays, trend towards violent totalitarianism and the attainment of power over the majority.

Reactionaries have been lecturing everyone like, forever. Now we can do whatever we want… because Duchamp nailed it.

As Russian and orthodox Christian I will say that Dugin's 4th political theory is total bulshit and idea that russians are special (in terms of betternes or special metaphysical mission) is sin in pure form, leave it to the Jews :) .Implementation of this theory will bring multinational and complex Russia to collapse.

😂❤❤

53 min of no arguments and sources

Not only one finds it repugnant to check the stupid ideas of this Dugin as if he is actually a true intellectual, BUT also to equate Marxism with Fascism whereas if it was Not for the Marxists WWII would have been won by Hitler & the Nazis... What I find also repugnant is the idea that Putin decides by himself & the decision to invade Ukraine is a one man's show & of course in this propaganda an evil man... this is an utter JOKE, the US pushed for this war by toppling the elected government in Ukraine in 2014 & by keep intimidating Russia ... I can't believe that the US Propaganda is still truly lousy & stupid

As a fat little man, I can see the upside.

"Ayn Rand is a gaint"!? I have read Ayn Rand and If Nietzsche is an elephant of philosophical tradition, Ayn Rand is the beetle that thrives and lives in an elephant's droppings. USSR took away Ayn Rand's fathers wealth and bitter ayn rand started ranting against altruism and traditional morality, while as Nietzsche was a metaphysician and psychologist in same league as Plato, Confucius and Kant. In fact, Nietzsche made Ayn Rand's ideas redundant about a century before her.

I'm reading Allan Blooms book now and that reference to it caught me off guard because I was literally thinking about it just before you said it

16:13

He makes a mockery of Dugin's philosophy.

Never would have guessed 90% difference of opinions! Fascinating.

Rand's idealism is overly simplistic. Nietzche is closer to reality of people as they actually exist. He recognized what psychologists have concluded since his time, that we rationalize what our subconscious drives have chosen for us. Even Rand did that, and suffered from her failure to recognize what she was doing. An extreme example was when she argued Nathanial Brandon into sleeping with her, claiming that it was objectively correct that he should do so, to the detriment of both party's relationships with their spouses.

9:10 - THANK YOU! I do not identify as Us, sorry.

Interesting to imagine Rand as a Nietzschean democrat. The Everyman ubermensch philosopher. @StephenHicks thank you for a new perspective!

No biggie, but I just noticed how young Stephen Hicks is in this video despite it being posted just a few weeks ago. I guess the video had been floating around for quite a while.

Well, first of all, Nietzsche was not a philosopher. He was an anti-philosopher par excellence. Rand was a real philosopher, albeit a very flawed one in many respects. So I am not surprised they disagree on almost everything.

Isn’t it time you tackled a new philosophy and engaged upon a topic of relevance and interest. Something a little more modern like, “the true path to a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict”. If nothing else, it will wake up some of your viewers from their apathetic hibernation and start a maelstrom of political debate. Now wouldn’t that be fun? 😛

Ayn Rand was a Soviet Spy and Nietzsche was a Satirist.

Here we have the entire foundation, as a generalisation, of the reverse morality - as I am calling it - of the Tea Party (a brand new discovery for me), Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and the ARC crusaders seeking to extract the materials of planet Earth at the expense of every poor fucker on the outside of their dismal, delusional nest of hydras. Now we have a target, too.

With all of problems of modernism, I still prefer it compared to postmodernism. 😢😢 I although appreciate the critical views of post modernism on reasoning and objectivity.

Too simple and informative! Subscribed

A detailed and fascinating comparison between Nietzsche and Rand presented here in just an hour long presentation. Thank you Dr. Hicks for your serious philosophical investigations and expert teaching.

Although I became fairly interested in philosophy for a period of time, especially philosophy of mind, a decade ago in my early 20's, and I largely consider myself a philosophical and political Liberal in the Classical sense like Professor Hicks, I can't get past the observation that interdisciplinary fields in the sciences have afforded us fairly robust explanations in relation to many of the age-old questions, within the last few decades. Therefore, it might be more accurate to delineate myself as a political (Classical) Liberal, with differing philosophical commitments. However, I'm not sure: aren't Lockian/Millian Liberals committed to scientific empiricism? While biologists are still learning new things about phenotype, behavioral geneticists have nearly arrived at what resembles a Nietzschean picture. Although, important caveats must be included: as Hicks argues, Nietzsche could well have been considered overly cynical, in retrospect. It's increasingly difficult today to argue, from a scientific perspective, that certain genes aren't winning out over others, governed by the same natural selection processes as everything else. However, (this could almost be considered an updated, 'meta' perspective,) what if the more adaptive genes in humans, turned out to be those that involve some predisposition toward agreeableness, cooperation, healthy self-consideration, and a kind of accompanying ostensible 'weakness' as seen through a Nietzschean lens? Indeed, it's hard to argue against the adaptive utility of a group of bundled traits that includes agreeableness and conscientiousness, Nietzsche's "slaves" can now be better understood as more adaptive in certain specific ways than the "masters". Neuroscientists study the continuity of clearly perceived "selves," and clearly continual, cohesion of thought processes (cognition) amidst various stimuli, and find both to be essentially absent. It's clear enough as to why, the subcategory of naturalism in the process of being established by interdisciplinary cognitive scientist John Vervaeke, draws significantly from Heideggerian philosophy. With these facts established, nevertheless, the science of mind is far from complete. Researchers from what I gather, tend often in this subject area, to simply swap-out a more traditional definition of "agency" for the one used in control systems, which essentially denotes a goal-directed, self-monitoring entity that remains deterministic. (Like a temperature thermostat, though the obvious difference compared to humans for biophysicists generally, would be the level of complexity of the entity). But once again, in reference to the incomplete science of mind: what allows us to fully explain the mind as a kind of 'projection machine?' Meaning, why do we 'tell ourselves a story' continuously, about having agency, and about being discrete individuals? Researchers can subconsciously prompt subjects, with red-colored images for example, and then when asked to randomly choose a color will pick as expected, yet when asked why will tend to fabricate an explanation. Evolutionarily, why is it apparently adaptive for us to be evolved to tell ourselves these stories? The answer seems to have to do with mitigating the neuroticism that comes with constant uncertainty in response to environmental stimuli, which results in a physiologically unhealthy state for the human organism. The complete answer is not yet fully understood. This is where philosophies like those of Rand, and Liberalism enter the picture. Because it is clearly adaptive for humans to understand our world, and interactions in a certain way, with a degree of continuity wherein we perceive ourselves as individuals, and have a measure of environmental/volitional control, a curious philosophical contrast can be discerned: It is Rand's philosophy that tracks more closely with what we can now understand about the adaptive HEURISTIC aspects of human perception in interaction with the world and society, and Nietzsche's philosophy that tracks more closely from an updated REALISTIC scientific perspective. While this rendering might seem ultimately Nietzschean, consider these examples: When a police officer is in a shootout, or person is in a car accident, they report the phenomenon of time slowing down. They don't interact with people and their surroundings normally, they are narrowly focused, yet find themselves more aware of numerous details of the surrounding area. After such incidents, they experience exhaustion, and some residual symptoms. It is difficult to communicate with people when in such a state. So, was this experience of the world more 'real,' because people were taking in more details of the world? It would seem so, if total, accurate, moment to moment sensory info is the arbiter, for 'most real'. (We know that what's happening in those states, is that adrenaline causes hyper-attentive focus, which stresses the nervous system until adrenaline is depleted). The point is, someone totally focused on realistic details of experience moment to moment with 'tunnel vision,' is not engaging a clearly navigable perspective on events and interactions, even if the associated prospectus could be deemed more reflective of empirically established reality. To subscribe to the Randian philosophy over the Nietzschean, one must incorporate an updated understanding of what it means to say people have selves, agency, and grasp clear universal morals. What these things really entail, for the modern educated person, is the recognition that they involve an adaptive mode for humans of interacting with the world, more than they entail empirically verifiable truth claims. To claim in contrast, that one is instead a Nietzschean, is more like saying, that one's preferred perspective on the world, is that of someone who is always in a car crash, or always in a shootout. It is therefore amusing to note, that Nietzsche would no doubt appreciate this extreme characterization.