The Malaise of Modernity
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.ค. 2024
- Charles Taylor gives his 1991 Massey Lectures. Note, the audio has been slightly edited and improved.
Chapters:
00:00 Intro
03:21 Lecture 1
47:50 Lecture 2
1:36:04 Lecture 3
2:23:51 Lecture 4
3:12:55 Lecture 5
#Philosophy #Ethics #Relativism
00:00 Intro
03:21 Lecture 1
47:50 Lecture 2
1:36:04 Lecture 3
2:23:51 Lecture 4
3:12:55 Lecture 5
Thank you!
i keep coming back to this lecture series every six months or so... i think this is a very important thing, in my far from humble opinion... o, how i opine!!!
FfGgUGDYuggu
❤❤❤😂🎉🎉🎉🎉Dffd😂😮😮😮 FdUfugddffUUUUFuuduUuFUu
The Keith Woods gang has visited you. Thank you for the great audio book and have a nice day.
Marvelous presentation.
Extremely grateful for this. Thank you
So distinctly clear and profoundly significant.
These videos get way too few likes. Come on guys and gals, it only takes a second to hit the like button!
Massey Lectures... a treasure of ideas.
A great thinker!
Lucid and important presentation.
Capitalistic Societies which place profit above community and human life produce ruthless individualism and feelings of powerlessness and apathy. Taylor claims it is not the lack of objective moral standards but the modern liberal ethos which is the sole force eroding our sense of community, creating atomism and narcissistic individuals. This is an old argument which was used by the church hundreds of years ago. Taylor's presentation is merely a clever diversion using a secular form of an old lie. He is appealing to vain intellectuals who believe they can change our world for the better with humanistic values alone. This is a narrow and simplistic view. Winning the hearts and minds of people will not be enough to right the course of our society. This outlook places the burden of change on the individual while deliberately ignoring major structural issues within the modern world. Regardless of the personal choices the common person makes in their life it will have little impact on the political, economic and legal direction of our government. The uncomfortable truth Taylor deliberately ignores; the Institutions which make up our society have lost their moral authority. They rule through violence, fear, greed and deception. The belief that they govern with our tacit consent because of our lack of participation is a lie. Does our vote really count. How functional is our democracy. Do we really have a voice. Our government has become the ruling arm of rapacious corporations. The individual has nowhere to turn so he is forced to look to himself since he has no allies and no one he can trust. The society he lives in is only concerned with harnessing his talent and labor. He has been objectified and reduced to nothing more than an economic unit. People are trapped by a system which seeks only to exploit them. They are forced to conform to this world or they are crushed. Conforming to such a world puts you at odds with your fellow citizen. That is the source of our anomie and social malaise not a lack of objective morality or a liberal ethos but the very form of our world itself.
Great stuff
this man looks like an famous painting of Sorolla ..el Pescador
"Here's to the ladies who lunch (everybody laugh), Lounging in their kaftans and planning a brunch, on their own behalf..." Stephen Sondheim, Company
No matter how many talks you listen to you can't do a squat about anything other than becoming a recluse because you don't want to run with the herd.
🙏
✊
Excellent talk on one hand. Very accessible. It's unfortunate he doesn't articulate his critique of Derrida or Foucault further than, 'they're highly complex philosophy can become banalized as relativism'. Terrible critique from such an esteemed scholar because it could be said of any philosopher that when their philosophy is dumbed down, simplified, taken out of their original form that they can be used to support bad positions. Aside, he's clearly interpreting Derrida's deconstruction as primarily negative and not as the translation as term that developed during Derrida's reading of Husserl and Heidegger.
Taylor also fails to see how Foucault's project and his own philosophical anthropology are quite similar. Foucault is all about understanding subject formation, how subjects are conditioned, formed, and controled by regimes of power and how different regimes of power require and form different modes of subjectivity. It's not relativistic at all because Foucault has a clear notion of a freedom and what a good human life would be, or what might lead towards the formation of a good life. Just so unfortunate to hear him repeat such drivel. It's a fly in an otherwise lovely ointment.
Anyone interested in a lecture on Foucault and Derrida from the same time period should search for Rick Roderick on them.
I am also highly suspicious of his talk of 'deviant forms of authenticity' and deviance as such. And, I think he does a lot of work to shirk our society's responsibility for the generation of these 'deviant forms'. They are mistakes, errors, irrational conclusions from valid premises, anything but real existing results from the source he so wishes to preserve. Unfortunately, the root itself is likely rotten and the whole project of grounding ourselves on any roots at all maybe highly problematic and futile. Authenticity is a highly suspect term and for good reason. However, the sense of a need for a root, even a prosthetic root, is an incredibly pressing matter that calls for thinking, but perhaps with a little more suspicion than Taylor is willing to proceed with
Oooh get you 😂
@@flyingteeshirts Capitalistic Societies which place profit above community and human life produce ruthless individualism and feelings of powerlessness and apathy. Taylor claims it is not the lack of objective moral standards but the modern liberal ethos which is the sole force eroding our sense of community, creating atomism and narcissistic individuals. This is an old argument which was used by the church hundreds of years ago. Taylor's presentation is merely a clever diversion using a secular form of an old lie. He is appealing to vain intellectuals who believe they can change our world for the better with humanistic values alone. This is a narrow and simplistic view. Winning the hearts and minds of people will not be enough to right the course of our society. This outlook places the burden of change on the individual while deliberately ignoring major structural issues within the modern world. Regardless of the personal choices the common person makes in their life it will have little impact on the political, economic and legal direction of our government. The uncomfortable truth Taylor deliberately ignores; the Institutions which make up our society have lost their moral authority. They rule through violence, fear, greed and deception. The belief that they govern with our tacit consent because of our lack of participation is a lie. Does our vote really count. How functional is our democracy. Do we really have a voice. Our government has become the ruling arm of rapacious corporations. The individual has nowhere to turn so he is forced to look to himself since he has no allies and no one he can trust. The society he lives in is only concerned with harnessing his talent and labor. He has been objectified and reduced to nothing more than an economic unit. People are trapped by a system which seeks only to exploit them. They are forced to conform to this world or they are crushed. Conforming to such a world puts you at odds with your fellow citizen. That is the source of our anomie and social malaise not a lack of objective morality or a liberal ethos but the very form of our world itself.
There are a lot of remarks to be made, but this is one of the important ones.
2:04:40
❤
👍👍
36:28
Our design is contained within the genome. It is detailed enough to assemble our instincts (pre-programmed thought patterns). The human genome remains largely constant. Variations can be introduced by a lack of nutrition in the parents which therefore can be passed on to the offspring. Luckily Regenerative Agriculture has determined that within 3 generations the wholeness of the original seed (genome) is re-established. Which is important because industrial agriculture practices have caused the acceleration of auto-immune diseases which began in earnest with the introduction of Glyphosate which compromised the intimate relationship between plants and the soil preventing full nutrition.
The human genome has a prototypical design which is the most complicated known. Our instincts are profound and these are augmented by the mix of neurotransmitters our body needs to function. The critical features are those instincts/neurotransmitters that try to design a particular character type and I believe that to be universal alpha-ness. i.e. _Adequate_ courage, resilience, seeking achievement and sociability. Not antisocial levels; but compromised of course by the many unavoidable birth defects (re-read the first para about their supposed unavoidability).
The evidence for any changes to the human genome since we emerged from Africa are specious. Many variations are already contained and are expressed in activating the alleles. e.g. From the Wolf came every body type, hair type, ear type, size and length to create the modern dog. Potentially we all contain the 'makings' of a Zulu, an Aborigine, etc. Which could be very helpful in the racist debate.
As a creative tool maker newness is always coming, that is the key. However the human mind will have generational 'truths'. Balancing the two is the eternal human struggle. Equally luckily we will die thus removing the previous generation's orthodoxy from the debate - but - the full prototype has no use for these at all, we should remain receptive and accepting to innovation and any incapacity to do so is a failure of humanness. However not every innovation has immediate value, some process of evaluation and modification (conservatism) needs to be maintained - a review to fit the concept seamlessly into the existing narrative. Which is also the process called common sense. See Schopenhauer's essay _On Education_ to learn about the origins and value of common sense.
you obviously choose to interpret your world strictly through the scientific lens... don't you find that inadequate for understanding the complexity of the human condition?
@@languagegame410 Not at all. The scientific approach may describe the entirety of what it took to assemble the building blocks of life; lipids become cell walls, etc., and then 17+ billion years of a steady accretion of small steps. Based on the the constancy, necessity and existence of the Laws that govern the assemblance of matter from energy. I doubt we will be able to prove we understand beneath the atomic level (limitation of the Speed of light etc.,) but we may be able to rely on working hypotheses.
The nett result is a hugely complex organism however it has its own genomic rules, its own prototype: and that is the first human truth, to raise as best we can prototypical kids to become replacement adults. An approach vastly superior to a merely scientific understanding, or that of any extant society, religion or ideology. Case in point: a full life requires Art, which is an ongoing private conversation with our (out of our control) subconscious which again is purely ours, unique, based on our character which only developed with our experiences, presumably from our conception. It provides all the 'magic' we will have access to. Science can describe its potential origins but is dumbstruck by its products.
BTW the genome assembles instincts, a pre-programmed mind. It is extremely competent.
@@peterclark6290 Just for curiosity, what is art for you? How does it fit in the world of atoms, genomes, matter? In the same regard, what is the subconscious?
@@1yanyiel Art? I guess it is that which demonstrates contact with a portal to the sublime. A glimpse of something greater than current human reality (which we mostly hope exists). Exhibiting that moment when excellence seems possible fueled by our desire for the same. Our taste for it expands (or refines) as we grow older.
The subconscious: seems to operate within the Limbic system and its product are those unheralded thoughts, only some of which are useful. Possibly a by-product of the brain's memory storage system. BTW it is sufficiently distant from our control to treat it as a separate entity, 'the man within', whispering mostly useless nothings until - Pow!
The two above are intimately linked, egoless Yin and Yang. But, without reality, atoms, matter, consciousness they could never be realised. But from what? My guess: The rules of engagement that permit perpetual energy specks (sub-sub-atomic matter) to form atoms, compounds, complex structures,... that ultimately led to self-aware, sensate life who could contemplate the fundamental question: Is intelligence the Cosmos trying to make sense of itself? It might be _sapiens_ and then again there is no pressure - we have to provide the discipline and the desire. We already have the tools and we're working on the systems.
My contribution (so far, book in progress):
facebook.com/Vision-Representation-A-Humanist-Government-262619170609120 (The pinned post and its primary comments numbered II - VIII) for the gist of the idea.
OR demvision.wordpress.com (3 pages)
Sure, man! Can I have a puff?
Not sure what kind but a flawlessly sterile, content-free word salad such as this must be some sort of a record. Waiting on the musical with all consuming anticipation.
Why do you think this is a “word salad”?
Let's hear a thoughtful counter-argument.
The irony of using jargon filled world salad to critique the lecture instead of offering ant counter-arguments. Lol.