Youtube comments of Andrew Wilson (@andrewwilson9183).
-
143
-
65
-
35
-
35
-
32
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
18
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@caleblee1780
You’re forgetting, still, the British abolitionist movement started by men such as William Wilberforce, and their persecution of slavery outside their empire.
A lot of British elites such as Queen Victoria, John Stuart Mill, Charles Darwin, and Edmund Burke genuinely opposed slavery or the slave trade out of principle.
The fact is that British political philosophy, with its emphasis on individual rights and freedom was primed to oppose slavery eventually.
Also the British didn’t switch to importing cotton from India in force until after the American Civil War started. Prior to that they were “hypocritically” fine with buying most of their cotton from the United States. Which by the way didn’t take off until after 1807. Thought the cotton-gin which made American cotton profitable in the 1790s, it takes awhile for innovations like that to really take off. This would still be after the abolitionist movement started.
As for India, Britain didn’t outright ban manufacturing in India, as evidenced by their being a few Indian industrialists, it’s simply that by imposing free trade they made manufacturing in India uncompetitive.
Britain also had all the right conditions for industrialization. The most creative people in the world, the highest wages in the world, raw materials at home such as iron, coal, tin, and water. As well as a mercantile fleet that could bring anything else from trade, and an already strong manufacturing sector. Strictly speaking, with British-American trade as an example, they didn’t need to control the location where that cotton came from, they simply would have needed to tariff or ban cloth imports from other countries, which they were already doing prior to the conquest of Bengal.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Footy_Fan well as an American having been to the Netherlands they speak a lot of English. In fact Dutch is the easier language for an Anglophone to learn. The Netherlands is culturally similar to England and the British isles, our progenitor. It also feels very American. They were a federal republic like the USA as well. They may be more leftwing as of now, but they are salvageable. You forget that New York was originally founded by the Dutch. They were early pioneers of constitutionalism, representative government, and capitalism. While Poland is similar in that respect, Hapsburg Hungary certainly is not.
Also it should be natural that we have more in common with a fellow northwest European country, than Poland or Hungary. Especially Hungary. Also both the U.S. and Netherlands have been historically majority Protestant as well.
In sum, they are historically similar to us, and they speak a lot of English, Dutch cities are easy to navigate. They and Scandinavia speak the most English outside the Anglosphere.
As a side note their architecture and landscaping is one of the best. Most European cities bore me, but not Amsterdam or other Dutch cities. They made them pretty. You won’t find commie blocks like in Eastern Europe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596
They would not join
While they speak english and do have some cultural and ethnic ties to Britian and her former white colonies, the Irish do not have a love for the British who inserfed them in the 17th century. They do not share the same relationship with the Anglosphere they way we do with ourselves. Ireland afterall refused to join WII. It would just feel so out of place to both them and the Anglo Sphere for them to join.
Also a United AngloSpere, would act similar to the british empire. sort of, it would be something to the effect of an Anglo-American or British-American Empire. That is divided between the power of the United States and the the other nations which have the same monarch
Also and this gets back to the point about Ireland
Language shouldn't be the only criteria,
Nigeria and Ghana both have their official languages as English, however they are very much culturally distinct from Britain and her former white settler colonies. Thus I am hesitant to say that they should join. Though an acception should be made for Jamaica, Belize, Trinadad, and the Bahamas given how small and powerless they are.
Lastly establishing a United States style government would not tennable given how centralized the U.S. gov is and that ruling over a geographicaly divers domain would be diffictult.
An EU style gov but more democratic would make more sense.
All nations involved would share the same foriegn policys, commit to certain goals and beliefs, with easy travel and free trade being established between member states. Perhaps and ammendment to the U.S. constitution alowing someone from a member state being allowed to run for office.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@daniellarson3068
Well you have to understand the role of historical circumstances and geography. Culture plays a role as well, with Russia not being apart of western civilization.
Which explains part of it. You see, what we call liberal democracy had its modern origins primarily in Britain, whereby the mid 18th century Great Britain was the most free and democratic developed (for the time) nation. Britain was developed due in large part to being in middle of the European world, contact that allowed for the scientific revolution to largely start in England for example. You see Britain being an island nation means that it is largely protected from foreign invasion, such security means that country can afford a degree of diversity and descent or freedom as it doesn’t threaten that nations security. This also means that a large standing army that could be used to oppress the people isn’t warranted. Combine this geography and historic wealth with a Germanic culture that believe in making kings accountable to the people, and a Greek Philosophical tradition, you get liberalism as an ideology largely being developed by Englishmen, alongside culturally and geographically similar Dutchmen and Scots, as well as Frenchmen such as Voltaire. With the United States, what happened is that British people established a country in which geographic security allowed us to keep our British mindsets and now today we Americans think in terms of liberalism.
Russia doesn’t have that experience, in which they have suffered immense abuse from outsiders starting with the mongols, after which they started to abuse themselves, much like how an abused child repeats the behavior that was inflicted on them. And due to their lack of security, which is worse than any European nation, freedom hasn’t usually been affordable to them, and now they have a national pathology of paranoia and a lack of empathy.
I’m brutally simplifying, but that’s the gist of it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Wuthering_Waifus
The unmoved mover is a philosophical not religious concept. Though I suppose you could classify it as a natural religious concept, if you exclude natural religion it isn’t.
Second, I don’t see how modern science diverged all that significantly from Aristotle or the book of Genesis.
Inductive logic is implied by Aristotle, and much of Bacons teleology of science comes from Genesis
Thirdly, I meant relative isolation. Yes there was influence from Egypt in Math.
Fourthly, my problem with Hinduism, and why I think it is inferior to Greek Philosophy and middle eastern religion is that Hinduism doesn’t respect the material world enough. I understand empirically why that is, India has both the best and worst geography in the world, with plentiful farmland and land plentiful disease, so understandably the people there would come to that conclusion, however I would still argue that it a conclusion in error. Yes the contemplative life is important, as Hinduism rightfully teaches. However, the fullness of contemplative virtue requires scientific knowledge, and physical life seems to exist to express creativity, we are physical life, therefore that is our purpose as well.
Given the empirical biases that are inevitable in a tropical environment, in my opinion the most objective philosophies and religions will be the ones from temperate climates. As such it is no coincidence that even the Chinese who are part temperate came to a conclusion partially that of Genesis and Aristotle, with their obsession with terraforming the land around them, and the numerous technological innovations given to us from China, compared to India.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fortheloveofking
I am sorry, and I have no defense for those things. But I disagree with your definitions.
Traditionally, going back to the Middle Ages. Supernatural referred to divine intervention that suspends the nature of a given thing. Miracles. That Angels exist is not considered supernatural, but to destroy an angel would be. As angels are by nature immortal, thus to destroy them would be a supernatural suspension of their nature.
God, vaguely, is a being that is all powerful, all knowing, all Good, and all present. Or the essence of knowledge, power, existence, and goodness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@klarkewang
Communism and Marxist Socialism, simply put, is totalitarian democracy, or democratic totalitarianism. This is because they reject property rights, and by extension liberty in general, yet stand for collective decision making. However Marxism adds in dialectical materialism.
Fascism, is also totalitarian, however in fascism an oligarchy or autocracy stands in for the “will of the people”, and for the strength of a particular identity. Fascism is identitarian totalitarianism.
The ideology of the Chinese Communist Party is in practice Identitarian Totalitarianism with Marxist elements added, with Xi referring dialectical materialism. Hence a blend of fascism and Marxism.
Fascism is inherently incompatible with liberal capitalism, as fascism rejects the liberties afforded by liberalism.
1
-
@
1. I disagree that mainland china has property rights. As far as land is concerned people rent from the state. And the nation is quite authoritarian, the crackdown on Tiananmen square and Hong Kong for example.
2. As I said, the Communist Party is not communist, but rather a hybrid of Fascism and Marxism.
3. A government that plays to nationalism, is authoritarian, and pretends to be democratic, while lacking the democratic institutions, is what Fascism is.
4. I subscribe to Liberalism, or the variety behind the founding of the USA, because it is more consistent with human rights theory.
5. You reflect the tendency of Chinese, and broadly East Asian, political philosophy of not caring about ideology and more caring about “whatever helps the nation”. That simply is the thinking of westerners, and communism, fascism, and liberalism, are all western ideas. You are correct, the Chinese do not care about labels, but from my perspective offering a western perspective, it is Marxistic Fascism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@atheistbushman
That is a diverse and somewhat contradictory list of thinkers. A Greek Philosopher, the founder of Buddhism, two atheists and a Christian Apologist. Fascinating.
For me I would say Aristotle, Cicero, St Thomas Aquinas, Sir Francis Bacon, and John Locke.
Now if I may ask, what do you think that list says about me?
From your I can guess that you are an empiricist, you value critical thinking, you’re a classical liberal?, and someone who really likes Buddhism, although you have already made that clear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@frankpentangeli7945
You make to other errors.
First, not all of what we describe as "Human Rights" are equal.
Human rights are what might be thought of as a development of doctrine. That is to say, older concepts of rights carry more weight.
Rights to Life, Liberty, Property, freedom of conscience and expression, right to not receive cruel and unusual punishment, voting rights, and gun rights are the oldest understood rights, dating back to the Enlightenment. They carry the most weight, and are settled in the Western tradition.
Positive rights such as Health care and Education came in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Not as much weight as Property rights, and not as totally settled, but largely settled. Right to not be enslaved, early 19th century, quite settled. A right to abortion has only been known in the past 50 years, and is not settled. So while you may think it is a human right, you can't proclaim so arrogantly.
Second your comparison to slavery doesn't work. Because it is the pro abortion people who are denying personhood, not the pro lifers. The pro lifers are the abolitionists in your analogy, by accident of course.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Even still I like the Swiss system, minus the heavy regulations. For Conservatives and Libertarians the Swiss Healthcare system is the only one for our money that we would be okay implementing in this country, seeing the other system's... the NHS, and what Canada has etc, to be garbage. And by the way Obama's health care system really wasn't based on the private market place, if it was he would have gone all libertarian and deregulated the healthcare and health insurance industries. Or he would have given vouchers to the American people and mandated that they buy health insurance, forcing health insurance companies to compete in the market place,instead he just subsidized the health insurance companies, that isn't free market capitalism, that's Crony Capitalism, Cronyism, Corporatism, call it what you will.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AugustusDraco-t3d
I will have to read the article, though it may be that he was misunderstanding. There is also a lot of sensationalism in popular scientific articles, which should give reason for doubt.
Yeah I understand that in many cases our society is very authoritarian, however, in the case of Snowden he did arguably commit treason, which is a bit different. He did not mention economics or the Anthropocene so I do not think those are what he meant. I agree with the rest of the video. To your point I should read up on the quantum mechanics issue.
So what quantum mechanics says as far as super position is concerned, if you use the example of what are called quantum computers, there are Qbits that can be one and zero at the same time. A normal bit is either one or zero. When a "measurement" happens, or some interference, the Qbit takes on either the form of one or zero. In Aristotelian philosophy, there is the "substance" of a thing, and there is the "accident" of a thing. The subtance is that which essentially defines a thing, and the accident are properties that are optional. For example, I am a substance that has the accident of green eyes. An accidental change would be if I got some procedure to have blue eyes, a substantial change would be for a thing to be destroyed. A subatomic particle is in superpostion in which it is a substance that occupies multiple accidents. Interference, causes an accidental change in the particle, to occuply a singuler accident. The accidents in this case are the particles spin. Thus even if consciousness effects reality, it can only be doing so accidentally, not substantially. Furthermore, I do not believe he was at all talking about the creation of artificial things.
1
-
@AugustusDraco-t3d
Regarding Consciousness, or awareness, it is the state of an agent possessing information. Now there are different levels of consciousness. Consciousness requires to components, a capacity of possession and reaction. So a fish has a very basic level of consciousness, its recieves impressions of external objects onto itself, specifically the possessive component, and its reactive component that enages with the information has control over that information. As it is said "knowledge is power". If an agent were to have only a possessive component then the agent would be no different than a white board. Regarding human consciousness, we have self awarness, in which our minds in a sense has an impression of itself, and control of itself. Now Rudyard speaks of an immateriality to the human mind. Now it is the position of Aristotelian philosophy, which includes Aristotle and Aquinas, that this is the case. The argument is that if the human mind is entirely physical, than we would not knowledge of abstracts which immaterial. If the mind were physical it could only have physical impressions, thus there must be something that is immaterial that grants knowledge of abstracts. For Aristotle this is the Active Intellect. For Aquinas there is also the Will, as knowledge comes with control. The Intellect is the possessing component of abstract consciousness and the Will is the reactive.
Regarding Religion and Agnosticism. The definition of agnosticism is people who are ambivelant as to a proposition. He uses it interchangably with "secular" even though it is possible for people to be agnostic and religious. He will sometimes define religion as a system of ethics, metaphysics, ritual, and community, and then he will alternatively speak of it as an opposition to atheism, even though he has also said that religions can be atheistic. So very confusing. He doesn't seem to have a placement for Deists, its pretty ambiguous. He once said that people who think that traditional religion is false should just support them anyway. I do not think he takes the different beliefs of different religions seriously. He also doesn't have a clear definition of faith, he is pretty vague. Jordan Peterson does the same thing. I understand that Rudyard is self described Christian, but his beliefs confuse me. When asked on a podcast why he supports Christianity, he simply said it is because it helps people. I think he what would be classified as an Agnostic Christian " a person who believes that Christianity is true somehow" but he has already used the term agnostic so negatively and inappropriately he would not be able to admit that, especially, to much of his audience.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AugustusDraco-t3d
1. He is inconsisted with his use of the term religion, sometimes he will use it to refer to any set of beliefs with a defined metaphysics, ethics, rituals, and community. However, he will sometimes use it interchangably with a belief in God. This of course complicates what he means by secular. Where do Deists fit in, those that believe in God yet reject divine revelation.
2. Likewise, he misuses the term Agnostic. Agnostic refers to ambivelance or skepticism regarding a proposition. He however, uses it as a synonym for atheism or secularism.
3. He doesn't seem to take traditional Christian beliefs all that seriously. He claims to be Christian, yet he appears very agnostic about it. His answer on this one podcast as to why he supports Christianity, is that it helps people.
1
-
@
Regarding consciousness, or awareness.
1. Awareness is the state of an agent possessing and engaging with information.
2. There are two necessary components or potencies “powers”of a knowing agent. The possessive potency, which possesses information, and the reactive potency that engages with information. Without the former, there would be nothing for the reactive potency to engage with, and without the latter, the agent would be no different than a whiteboard.
3. At the most primitive level of awareness, such as that of a fish, the possessive potency takes on impressions of external objects. Such impressions are thus objects of control for the reactive potency. The function of an agent having awareness, is that it grants the agent control in relation to other things, including itself in the case of self aware agents. As it is said, knowledge is power.
4. Self awareness, I would contend, is where an agent possesses impressions itself. Whereby the agent perceives itself perceives externally, and perceives itself perceiving itself.
5. Now it argued by many that there is a part of the human mind that is immaterial, or “spiritual”. That would be Aristotelian view. The argument is that if the human mind is entirely physical, then it would only be able to have impressions of physical objects, or physical impressions. Not impressions of abstracts which are immaterial. Thus it is believed that the part of the mind that thinks of abstracts is immaterial, this is called the Intellect. Which is the possessive potency for abstract thinking. Later the concept of an immaterial Will was also conceived, as a fitting counterpart to the Intellect. The Will is the reactive potency of abstract thought. This perspective so far makes the most sense to me.
1
-
@AugustusDraco-t3d Regarding consciousness, or awareness.
1. Awareness is the state of an agent possessing and engaging with information.
2. There are two necessary components or potencies “powers”of a knowing agent. The possessive potency, which possesses information, and the reactive potency that engages with information. Without the former, there would be nothing for the reactive potency to engage with, and without the latter, the agent would be no different than a whiteboard.
3. At the most primitive level of awareness, such as that of a fish, the possessive potency takes on impressions of external objects. Such impressions are thus objects of control for the reactive potency. The function of an agent having awareness, is that it grants the agent control in relation to other things, including itself in the case of self aware agents. As it is said, knowledge is power.
4. Self awareness, I would contend, is where an agent possesses impressions itself. Whereby the agent perceives itself perceives externally, and perceives itself perceiving itself.
5. Now it is argued by many that there is a part of the human mind that is immaterial, or “spiritual”. That would be the Aristotelian view. The argument is that if the human mind is entirely physical, then it would only be able to have impressions of physical objects, or physical impressions. Not impressions of abstracts which are immaterial. Thus it is believed that the part of the mind that thinks of abstracts is immaterial, this is called the Intellect. Which is the possessive potency for abstract thinking. Later the concept of an immaterial Will was also conceived, as a fitting counterpart to the Intellect. The Will is the reactive potency of abstract thought. This perspective so far makes the most sense to me.
1
-
@AugustusDraco-t3d
Regarding consciousness, or awareness.
1. Awareness is the state of an agent possessing and engaging with information.
2. There are two necessary components or potencies “powers”of a knowing agent. The possessive potency, which possesses information, and the reactive potency that engages with information. Without the former, there would be nothing for the reactive potency to engage with, and without the latter, the agent would be no different than a whiteboard.
3. At the most primitive level of awareness, such as that of a fish, the possessive potency takes on impressions of external objects. Such impressions are thus objects of control for the reactive potency. The function of an agent having awareness, is that it grants the agent control in relation to other things, including itself in the case of self aware agents. As it is said, knowledge is power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1