Comments by "Andrew Bowen" (@andrewbowen2837) on "Academy of Ideas"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mashumichelle "demonstrably" huh? First off, what do you mean by religion? Second, do you mean all religions, including Taoism, Buddhism, Stoicism, etc.? Third, how is it demonstrable? Is it the sense of community that it fosters, the philanthropic accomplishments, civic activism, the moral compass that guides behavior, or the hope and peace of mind it provides?
Furthermore, I can tell you've only selectively cherry picked that which fits your own agenda, and have ignored the things you are dogmatic to. I don't have to know you personally to know how you think and what you revere; you're no different than thousands of others in the world, many of whom I've had this exact conversation. So I'll repeat the same lines I give them: all forms of epistemology and ontology have been abuses for terrible ends throughout history. Have you ever heard of Juan Gines de Sepulveda? He used philosophy from Aristotle to argue that indigenous people in the Americas should be destroyed and/or enslaved. How about someone like Herbert Spencer, Earnest Hooton, Samuel Morton, Francis Galton, Josef Mengele, and researchers all throughout the twentieth century who committed or justified all sorts of atrocities in the name of science and its advancement? How about people like Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and so many others who slaughtered millions or forced thousands to migrate out of the same anti-theist dogma that you profess? And don't even get me started on the many unprovable assumptions that are required for a belief in science in the first place...
You and your likeminded echo chamber are not exempt from atrocities throughout history, and you are not exempt from the same pitfalls that all worldviews share. The fundamental problem with all of them is an assumption of superiority to the followers, and inferiority to the others. You're no different. How about that for "free thinking"?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bungus87 the main thing is from Notes from Underground, just the first section/part (about half of the work). It's a monologue from an intelligent man who cannot act because he always contemplates, and has become bitter about it. He describes how mathematically and rationally oriented lifestyles tend to turn towards irrationality out of spite, where they choose 2 times 2 is 5 just because they can, out of boredom, spite, and the desire for free will. He claims men aren't piano keys.
Another instance, albeit less explicit, is with The Brothers Karamazov and the contradistinction between the Grand Inquisitor, the embodiment of reason, and Jesus Christ, the embodiment of freedom and love. I won't spoil that for you though, but it's something to keep in mind when you read it.
The movement I was in reference to is "Post-Truth," as defined by the original poster. I think people have become disillusioned with the project of Modernity to establish the hegemony of science and reason, and thus have turned to emotions more. It is reactionary at the current state, but I think we will eventually balance out in a way similar to ancient Greece and find Sophrosyne
2
-
@seansmith3058 I think things will balance out because people will find the two extremes to be infeasible. We have experienced the one extreme for the past few centuries in the form of pure rationality, and in reaction to that, we will likely have a little while of pure emotion (I can't estimate how long though). However, I think people will find that neither by themselves can properly explain everything about humanity and phenomenology, leading to a reconciliation where both rationality and irrationality are used simultaneously. At least, I hope this is the case, because I think both extremes can be disastrous for us.
I find evidence for this stance in examining the history of political movements. Where there is an era of progressivism, it is followed by an era of traditionalism, and vice versa. I am unsure, though, if there is a balance between those two extremes, so we may just be in an endless cycle of that. If there is a golden mean, it will require a revolutionary country to set the standard for everyone else to follow on a global scale. But I digress; to summarize, I think there has been some dialectical aspect to history. Things have been like a metronome or seesaw, back and forth at different extremes.
You are probably asking how this leads me to thinking a balance can be made, since this evidence tends to show the opposite. With the ancients, Reason/philosophy reigned, then with the medievals, irrationality/theology reigned (I hesitate to say "irrational" here because they did use philosophy to argue for their religions - Aquinas, Averroes, Erasmus, Calvin, were all philosophic - but they all stopped their questioning at a certain point). Now we have seen rationality/science reign, to be replaced by irrationality/post-truth. Doesn't this seem to imply that there will be no balance, and everything continues to follow the reactionary, dialectical model?
Yes, it does, up to our moment and the near future. However, I cannot comprehend where the next stage will be, after Post-Truth, if it continues on this model. Perhaps this is an issue on my end then; and I would be unable to deny that possibility. What I think, though, is that we will have seen the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, that reason is too powerful a tool not to use and that irrational intuitions serve their purposes as well, and decide that we cannot return to any of the ways of the past in their entirety, as a whole extreme by itself. We will not be able to embrace philosophy alone once again, nor religion alone. That leaves two options then: forge a new way of understanding beyond rationality and irrationality, or to combine the two. I cannot think of what the former might be, so the latter seems the only real solution.
There are a whole lot of thoughts I have on the "hows" of this approach. One is the structuring of the psyche, like in Plato's Republic, except a Venn diagram perhaps, and a reintroduction of telos and teleology. One is using Nietzsche's approach and making each man master of himself (which could be post-truth to an extent too. I also have a very big hang up with this approach, but that's another topic). But I think the most fitting would be something from Dostoevsky: to be able to combine impulse or instinct with prudence, solving the existential, intellectual, and free-choice anxiety that the Underground Man suffers. In other words, to make each person both a man of thought and a man of action.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This whole idea of people as individuals is a modern development, used to justify classical liberalism. There is no way humans were individuals by nature; look at our relatives, the monkeys and apes, who live in groups. What evolutionary advantage would there have been to leave these groups and become individuals? People were parts of groups and communities for most of human history, being Spartans, Israelites, Romans, Persians, Christians, etc. Not until Locke and the enlightenment did the narrative start changing, when thinkers began using the "individual by nature" as a means of arguing for individual rights and freedoms. Perhaps only now are we starting to see the facade of liberalism and individualism collapse because they contradict our nature
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The great thing about comment sections of videos of this type are the accumulation of faux free thinkers. The googling of relevant quotes and the echo chamber of ideas would lead one to think that perhaps if so many people are so inclined towards thinking there is a problem in the world, that at least one would go about seeking a change. However, that has not been the case. Why is that? Why do the people preaching "dangerous freedom over peaceful safety" in the comments live by the latter in all circumstances except the anonymous comment section on YouTube? Because they know it a lie; these weakest of men, these Last Men, embody nothing more than what the Grand Inquisitor preaches in the Brothers Karamazov - bread and circus for their peace. These so-called free thinkers preach from their pulpit, but when they are challenged to come forth and practice what they preach, none dare step forward. They are sheep in their own accord, where joining a herd and following is easy, but creating their own or becoming a shepherd is outside of their capabilities. They will speak in unison with their group, as seen in these comments, but will not do so when the cards are on the table. Am I to derive hope from these comments, seeing people profess their concerns? Or despair, knowing they will neither take action nor formulate ideas outside of the anonymity of YouTube?
To the topic at hand then: the conflict of utilitarian morality and the western liberal metanarrative. How strange it is, first, that both of our contemporary conceptions of these ideas originated in England. To take a page from both Aristotle and Marx, it appears that democracy and liberal thought forged the weapons that would be their undoing. To clarify the two positions, for those very few who will read this: utilitarian morals seeks the most good for the most people, knowing that not everyone can be satisfied. So if 51% of people derive benefit from an action but 49% do not, then the utilitarian view would follow through with said action for the "common good." Liberalism, on the contrary, values each and every individual as equals, personified by the motto "a good soldier never leaves a man behind."
When practical politics come into play, the liberal perspective runs into pitfalls. How is it that you can satisfy every individual equally? The only way is by unanimity. However, we all know this is not feasible. The amount of time taken to continuously compromise to satisfy everyone would be the death knell of the government itself. In other words, is the soldier really good if he goes to save one comrade and ends up jeopardizing and killing the entire platoon? If one who is dogmatic to liberalism were to ponder on this issue for longer, they would also come to the horrifying realization that we have been living under utilitarianism the whole time. Democracy in itself is utilitarianism incarnate; for aren't the majority the only ones who see the benefits of such a system? To allude to Rousseau, the general will decides what is good for it, and everyone else is "forced to be free." Furthermore, such provisions are the established goals of the US government, as established in the preamble of the constitution: "promote the general welfare."
The one rebuke that will undoubtedly be bleated to no end is: "Look at how collectivism caused such destruction in the 20th century; it will never work!" There are several rebuttals to this claim. One is, if the liberal system were perfect, why did we see (and continue to see) people attempt to be rid of it? You may retort "because people are ambitious and power-hungry." Nay, they have seen through a flawed system, or were part of the minority group that did not reap the benefits of the liberal system, and instead seek something more just, or more effective. Another rebuttal is the issue of overcoming dogma. The West has dogmatically accepted liberalism, rights, and individuality for centuries. Where can one find any rights in nature? There was license perhaps. Where have we ever seen humans, or even primates or hominids, ever live as individuals? They have always been a part of a community. So why is there such reverence for the falsehoods of liberalism? Because it has been ingrained, and it makes the individual feel important. So when there were attempts to shed the yoke, of course there was resistance. The last rebuttal I will mention is the flaw of using the words "can't" or "won't." Just because something has not worked, does not mean it cannot or will not work. When you were learning to ride a bike and fell off, scraping your knees and elbows, did you forever give up on learning? Even then, one only has to take a quick glance at history to see that there have been collectivist, utilitarian regimes with success, some we call the greatest civilizations in history: Sparta and Rome. One can not help but to look in awe at the Horatii and be envious of their civic nationalism, or their devotion to a higher cause that gives them purpose. These things are not found in liberal societies, lest those in these comments would have already taken the role of Brutus.
Just so this little sheep is not left out of its herd, here is my pertinent, researched (but sadly not via Google) quote on the topic:
"... a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people, than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us, that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism, than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics the greatest number have begun their career, by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing Demagogues and ending Tyrants." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 1
1
-
1
-
@foreverbooked2964 you really believe that? That's blind faith if I've ever seen it. You profess a scientific ideal, but that is rarely how it is actually practiced. Hypotheses themselves are conclusions. Scientific work starts with a conclusion, then showcases evidence for that conclusion. However, they never showcase failures, cherry picking what they publish and portray to the public. Additionally, the very topics scientists research and what methods they use are the result of cherry picking. The only difference for them is that it isn't subconscious, but actually conscious.
And by the way, the only thing that distinguishes a hypothesis and a theory are how many people accept it. If the majority of scientists agree on a hypothesis, it arbitrarily becomes a theory. If we apply the same concept to all people as a whole, belief in God has been extremely popular throughout history, which would have made it an accepted hypothesis, and thus, a theory.
1
-
1