What are the hottest philosophy questions of our time? | Iain Mcgilchrist, Lisa Randall, Denis Noble
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 พ.ค. 2024
- This May, join Slavoj Žižek, Esther Freud, Eric Weinstein, Roger Penrose, Fiona Hill, Lisa Randall, Denis Noble, Brian Greene and many more at the HowTheLightGetsIn festival Hay2023 edition!
00:00 Introduction
00:47 Is objective morality even possible? Simon Blackburn | Slavoj Žižek
06:33 What does consciousness emerge from? Hannah Critchlow | Iain McGilchrist
12:09 Is capitalism worth saving? Huy Standinh | Jesse Norman
17:11 Has physics gone astray? Lisa Randall | Bjørn Ekeberg | Roger Penrose
24:04 Has the pandemic fundamentally changed us? Sunetra Gupta | Denis Noble
HowTheLightGetsIn returns this year on May 26-29th! Join us in the idyllic town of Hay-on-Wye this spring for a magical Bank Holiday weekend of reflecting, debating and dancing with the world's leading thinkers and performers.
Check out our programme here! howthelightgetsin.org/festiva...
Final tickets sale here! howthelightgetsin.org/festiva...
#WorldsBestSpeakers #UkFestival2023 #Debates2023
Links to the debates and talks in order of appearance:
Simon Blackburn & Slavoj Žižek - Moral facts and moral fantasy (2022)
iai.tv/video/moral-facts-and-...
Hannah Critchlow - The key to consciousness (2023)
iai.tv/video/the-key-to-consc...
Iain Mcgilchrist - Secrets of the Mind (2014)
iai.tv/video/secrets-of-the-m...
Guy Standing - The wealth paradox (2022)
iai.tv/video/the-wealth-parad...
Jesse Norman - The real capitalism (2011)
iai.tv/video/the-real-capital...
Lisa Randall - Dangerous data (2022)
iai.tv/video/dangerous-data?u...
Bjørn Ekeberg - Beyond the darkness (2023)
iai.tv/video/beyond-the-darkn...
Roger Penrose - The future of cosmology with Roger Penrose (2023)
iai.tv/video/the-future-of-co...
Sunetra Gupta - Dicing with death (2020)
iai.tv/video/dicing-with-deat...
Denis Noble - Dawkins re-examined (2022)
iai.tv/video/the-gene-machine...
⭐ HowTheLightGetsIn HAY 2022 press review:
Independent: "The philosophy festical where you bump into a Nobel prize winner in the coffee queue"
Culture Whisper: "Philosophy, comedy and music collide"
The Telegraph: "Asking vital questions about life"
Helsingin Sanomat: "The Woodstock of intelligence"
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
Final tickets sale for HowTheLightGetsIn Hay 2023 on May 26-29 here! howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/hay/festival-passes?TH-cam&+comment&
What a mish mash of "theories". I would compare this to cutting small bits of various movies at random, ending up with just being a waste of time. I am glad I caught on early and stopped watching. And who gives LOVE signs to their own comments? How needy. Goto one of these "griefers" Zizek talks about. Pay your dollar and soan in their grief on your behalf.
The most compelling question of our time is why doesn’t Zizek believe in antihistamines?
@@mikefuller9073 My brain is big but too smooth
"believe" ? what?
@@mikefuller9073 Zizek's brain is certainly as gaseous as large planets tend to be. He's not intelligent - he's just irresponsible. If you entirely abandon any concern for truth and rationality (as he has) you can also emit portentous nonsense at an epic rate. When I first saw footage of the Nordstream Pipeline disaster, I wondered if Zizek had gone scuba diving for clams.
@@Ubu987 You make me want to reclaim the word retarded for purposes different to the measure of time.
Lol what a thread
At 12:28 I am reminded of this quote by Carl Jung:
"Instead of the concrete individual, you have the names of organizations, and, at the highest point, the abstract idea of the state as the principle of political reality. The moral responsibility of the individual is then inevitably replaced by the policy of the State. Instead of moral and mental differentiation of the individual, you have public welfare and the raising of the living standard. The goal and meaning of individual life (which is the only real life) no longer lies in individual development but in the policy of the State, which is thrust upon the individual from outside and coasts in the execution of an abstract idea which ultimately tends to attract all life to itself. The individual is increasingly deprived of the moral decision as to how he should live his own life, and instead is ruled, fed, clothed and educated as a social unit..."
C.G. Jung, The Undiscovered Self
"Let's talk about consciousness", "Well morality is a complex behaviour!"
"There is no such thing as Margaret Thatcher!"
I often watch Investigation Discovery, about horrible crimes. It helps my brain relax, teaches about human nature and also about how to solve mysteries by investigation.
This is awesome
this is belissimo!
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Petsonally, I simply believe that consciousness is what we refer to as soul. I might differ with some theologians even if I am a Thomist. In my view spirit is mind and will. The unifying faculty which you could also say is consciousness, or what some mystically refer to as 'heart,' that would be what unites spirit and the physical body together. My perspective here may or may not be shared by others, but I do love to hear the points of view of others when it comes to existential issues. Thank you. 🤓
Let the light in
What I find so funny about UK is that they were taking control of their borders by leaving the EU. But their politicians was like "Its just about control, not anything else" while they increased immigration and opened their border for half a million immigrants, most immigrants in a span of a year in the whole history of UK.
Too many people with money chasing too few products tend to lead to inflation. Its like they don't understand economy at all.
P.s. I got my degree in economy playing WoW so I guess I cant call myself a "expert" but at least I understand that much.
Anyone who has played MMO-RPGs with an open market knows more about economy than a woman who literally cuts progressive taxes on the rich expecting the economy to run smoothly due to that.
inflation all over Europe and the Western world and beyond. If you think Brexit is the sole or main cause of inflation, you are living in a very little England mentality ironically.
Don't understand the point you are making.
You are correct. Most people don't understand economics at all. Not even at the WoW level. Does WoW make money for its publisher by making its players do repetitive tasks until they are tired of it and buy the game items, instead? :-)
gravity through time affects quantum mechanics?
So, how does he prove that gravity fluctuates? The distance between masses and the foci of masses changes, as do the masses themselves, but what are the other functions?
Love Lisa Randall. I sense a certain sense of usefulness. A beautiful idea. Reminds me of the work of Hume.
She seems ok. Still believes in moon missions, though. 18:02. Sheesh....
@@gmw3083 So you see no benefit to having humans go to the moon? OK, and you are questioning her?
@@13e11even11 no one has ever been to the moon. Those were all staged performances.
The Mars Rover stage....
....is on Devon Island in far northern Canada.
I liked the thought about genetic assimilation, it made me think of endocrine disruptors. And the rising rate of cognitive dissonance.
Plant biased diets 😅
I don't see a wide gulf between stamping on a blind baby for fun on the one hand and chopping up and vacuuming out a shortly-to-be-born baby for convenience on the other
The thumbnail did the dude on the right dirty lol
They just hate Zizek.
each container has its own shape and each unique shape dictates what vibrations are echoed within and the result of these echoes mixed with all of the other echoes of all of the other containers forms and shapes consciousness . Consciousness is : Biological Cymatics on a macro level, where the patterns of vibrations and echoes create a complex and dynamic system of thoughts, emotions, perceptions, and self-awareness. These patterns of vibrations and echoes are influenced by a variety of factors, including genetics, environment, experiences, and interactions with others, and can change over time as the individual develops and adapts to new stimuli. Where does the original sound come from though! ?
🐟 06. PURUṢA (CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS):
CONSCIOUSNESS DEFINED:
The English word “consciousness” means “the state of being aware”, or “that which knows”, or even more literally, “characterized by knowing”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, the phenomenon of consciousness refers to the SUBJECTIVE component of any subject-object relationship. Moreover, there is a hierarchy of localized knowing within the cognitive faculty of vertebrates (that is, a hierarchy of subject-object relationships), as well as a more Universal Awareness (more appositely called “Brahman” or “sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit, or “Tao”, in Chinese), as explicated in the following paragraphs.
Consciousness is essentially impersonal, yet it can be expressed via a personal being, such as many species of animals, including we humans. Just how consciousness can be detached from a personal agent can be a rather bizarre concept to comprehend, at least in the initial juncture, yet after careful study of this chapter, in conjunction with a profound yogic practice, one will eventually understand this to indeed be the case.
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom is a matter of contention but, judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds, reptiles and fishes). Those metazoans that are evolutionarily-lower than vertebrates do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for true knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts, notwithstanding certain notable exceptions to this rule, such as octopuses. For instance, an insect or a jellyfish does not consciously decide to seek food but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when an insect (such as a cockroach) flees from danger, it is not experiencing the anxious emotions that a human or other mammal would experience. See Chapter 11 regarding the concept of will.
SENTIENCE EVOLVES INTO TRUE CONSCIOUSNESS:
Undoubtedly, the lower species of animals alluded to above, embody, if not true consciousness, varying degrees of SENTIENCE, depending on how many senses it possesses and how complex is its nervous system. Very few would consider a blind worm to be more sentient than a frog!
Plants are also sentient but use lower-level mechanisms for their perceptions. To give just a couple of examples, both land-based and water-born plants respond to sunlight (as witnessed by the opening of flowers upon the rising of the sun), and some carnivorous plants can detect arthropods crawling on their leaves. Therefore, when carnists claim that “plants have feelings too!”, they may be justified according to some sense of the term, so the most logical reason for being vegan is not because plants are completely insentient, but simply due to the fact that humans are an herbivorous species. Furthermore, fruit trees indirectly benefit from the consumption of its fruit, since their seeds are spread.
Recently, consciousness has become a significant topic of interdisciplinary research in cognitive science, involving fields such as philosophy of mind, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, neuropsychology and neuroscience. Many such researchers have seen evidence that the brain is merely a conduit or a TRANSDUCER of consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person (See Chapter 17 re: the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening). The processor of a supercomputer must necessarily be far larger in size, more complex, and more powerful than the processing unit in a pocket calculator, obviously. Therefore, it seems logical to extrapolate that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness is chiefly dependent on the brain capacity of a specific animal.
So, then, in response to the assertion made in the previous paragraph, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence, on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That is unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak sweet and gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
THE THREE STATES OF AWARENESS:
Three STATES of awareness are experienced by humans, and possibly all other species of mammals, as well as many kinds of reptiles and birds:
the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep or dreamless-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit).
Human dreaming occurs mostly, but not exclusively, in the state known as “REM” (rapid eye movement) sleep. During this phase, the electrical activity in the brain is more like waking than sleeping. That is why this state is often called “paradoxical sleep.” Scientists have discovered that most non-human animals - mammals, birds, reptiles, and most recently, fish - experience REM sleep, too. The electrical activity found in the brains of these creatures during rapid eye movement sleep is similar to that of humans while they dream, suggesting that animals may dream.
Some cognitive psychologists may claim that there are TRANSITIONAL states between waking, dreaming, and deep-sleep, but these states are just that - transitory states between the three main states, in the same way that sunrise, daytime, and sunset have transitional states.
Furthermore, there exists the well-known phenomenon of lucid dreaming, where the subject is aware of the fact that a dream is taking place.
Beyond these three temporal states of waking, dreaming, and deep-sleep, is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, timeless “state”, which underlies the other three, and is therefore completely transcendental to any temporal state whatever.
The waking state is the LEAST real (that is to say the least permanent, or to put it another way, the farthest from the Necessary Foundation of Existence, as explained towards the end of this chapter). The dream state is closer to our eternal nature, whilst dreamless deep-sleep is much more analogous to The Universal Self (“Brahman”), as it is imbued with peace. Rather than being an absence of awareness, deep-sleep is an awareness of absence (that is, the absence of phenomenal, sensual experiences). So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being, or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Existence-Awareness-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSORY nature of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams was to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course it is real!” Likewise, if someone was to ask your waking-state character if this world was real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in a similar fashion.
THE THREE COMPONENTS OF EXPERIENCE:
There are three COMPONENTS of experience (or perception) - the experiencer/perceiver (or the seer, known as “dṛk” or “draṣṭā”, in Sanskrit), the experience/perception (or the process of seeing, known as “dṛṣṭi”, in Sanskrit), and the experienced/percept (or the seen, known as “dṛṣyam”, in Sanskrit). This “Seer-Seeing-Seen” triad is a more complete extension of the subject-object dichotomy.
Cont…
Huh?
Sophilos & a happy day to you all😅
Does anyone understand what Žižek was trying to say about objective morality?
Could it be that ethics and morals are «just» epiphenomena of our biological need of one another to survive?
It may be that is why they feel sacred to many of us.
that's just established scientific truth...
Great point that came to my mind during the talk too - Graeber talks about it a bit in his book Debt, how ingrained morals of give and take led to the earliest forms of debt, barter, feuds etc.
Leave out the "just." What else is our phenotype -material, and functional- than a collection of epiphenomena needed to survive as a social mammal? We see an early form of tit-for-tat ethics in other animals. They did not read about it in books; it is coded in their genome. What says we do not have similar codecs in our genome?
*Guy Standing* aka Huy Standinh
No. Morality is not a conclusion. In that audience (that group of people) there is a coincidence in a certain circumstance.
In other times, when asking a group of people if it is acceptable to cremate babies of a certain race, most would have raised their hands in support of the idea.
Morality limits what are acceptable behaviors for the group. Circumstances determine the majority neurochemical reactions to that group.
More crisis, more fear, more racism, more tribalism, and the genocidal solution once again appears as morally acceptable.
Nothing is established regarding human morality. It is a daily job.
Morality is dependent on goals. Giving hormone blockers to children is “good” when your goal is to destroy beauty.
@@bryanutility9609 If the majority dislikes utilitarianism, utilitarianism is immoral.
If the majority supports individualism, helping the weak is immoral.
It is not true that people have transcendental access to absolute morality.
Beauty does not offend. If a female nipple offends the majority, a female nipple is not beautiful.
Either a vagina is beautiful or a vagina is not beautiful.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd I don’t care what the majority think except for their power. Generally the majority follow elites. However ugly resentful people do envy beauty and want to destroy beauty regardless of their demographic status.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd We do have transcendent access the morality thru God of course. Something is beautiful because it is sympathetically in tune with the perfection of the monad.
Also in your first example you try to point out how relative it is when in times past a whole nation would raise their hands to kill masses of other people but you're forgetting that in itself came from an objective notion of justice. (the Jews were unjustly destroying their nation and so the reaction was to genocide) and even now the idea that most people find that abhorrent is predicated on the idea that it was unjust (The Jews didn't actually do what they were accused of)
Throughout the whole history that sense of moral justice was there and both sides use it to show how something is good or bad
@@off6848 what you are doing is a literal blasphemy. You don't have any access to god. No matter how much religious you claim to be.
love lisa randall she smart af
Might makes right
Simplest way I understand anything is in its spectrums of extremes/opposites. 0 and 1. inifinity and eternity lies in between. circulate nature of things where destination and home is same state. This knoweldge is obviously abstract and complex but it set you free from your journey to find truth while living in it. Observer is inherently connected with observed. Dreamer is destined to dream and think it is real. Waking up and finding the truth is the dance between dream and reality. First day of your life happening simultaneously with last day of your life. no lines between outside and inside world. Dont get caugh up in the middle. Balance comes after knowing the extremes of your existence/death. Not having purpose is essential nature of having purpose. Don't get caught in the character, words, actions. An ant belongs ot is colony as much as colony belongs to that ant. Make fate your guide and love every seconds of it. Focus on how of doing things instead of what and why. this will help you achieve anything in life a lot easier and will grace and love in your life.
You do not really understand anything unless you understand the idea of Darwinism, the Gauss curve, and the essentials of statistics.
Only the possible can happen, but it does not have to.
Hottest and philosophy are not two words I thought I would see together...
Using ‘hottest’ in the title is misplaced and click-baity
We can't distinguish consciosness, matter and energy. They're all expressions of the same, the totality of everything.
Yes, we can. Each realm has its own logic and vocabulary.
You do not eat energy, you eat food. There is a difference.
@@MarttiSuomivuori, what I mean is that everything is in the All. There can be nothing outside the All
The answer to the blind babies question is Hamas.
Finally people see beyond Capitalism and Communism.
Any system of government, other than MONARCHY, including democracy (and, of course, socialism) is the most pernicious institution in the history of the planet. Email me for the explanation. My address is listed in the “About” page of my TH-cam channel.
Why aren’t there more philosophers sitting
They are out playing football.
📍20:23
It appears that IAI is unaware of the question that's probably most urgent: What voting method(s) should democracies use to elect politicians to offices? The most widely used voting method in the world is the Robert's Rules procedure for voting on motions, which counts multiple head-to-head majorities, which makes it reasonably effective at defeating minority-preferred policies. (It counts N-1 head-to-head majorities to eliminate N-1 of the N alternatives, similar to a single-elimination sports tournament.) But all of the world's democracies elect politicians using primitive voting methods that count at most one majority. That majority is often a coalition of minorities on different issues. This undermines accountability & majority rule, promotes political polarization, empowers extremists, and prevents issues from being settled. Counting all of the head-to-head majorities would effectively eliminate spoiling and create a strong incentive for politicians to support majority-preferred policies on more issues.
@@Maxhster : One could ascribe each of the questions discussed in the video to some branch of hard science or social science. For example, you could call the discussion of some of the flaws of free market capitalism a question for economic theorists. No voting method is perfect, and there isn't a consensus among social choice theorists about which criteria to use when comparing voting methods, so it seems reasonable that philosophers should take a close look at this.
By coincidence, in a video posted today at the Closer To Truth youtube channel (at 3 minutes 53 seconds) philosopher Rebecca Goldstein points out that it becomes an issue for philosophers when the available empirical facts underdetermine the scientific theories. This is the situation with the question of which voting method(s) should democracies use, because it's impossible to experiment with high stakes elections.
I’d just prefer the alleged meta-physical manifestation of God to once again return to this plane of existence to save us from our shared cognitive dissonance all together…
@@Cardioid2035 : Why do you prefer that over learning how to save ourselves?
@@brothermine2292 Mainly because the human condition will always be divisive and unsatisfied. To be inclusive to all political agendas a lot of comprises need to be made, which consequently halts any meaningful progress in any direction. On the flip side the dangers of non-democratic totalitarian models leads to absolute power corrupting absolutely. So to me without the alleged ‘divine arbiter of justice’ at the helm that was supposedly here in deep antiquity I view modern societies acting like a chicken with its head cut off. The analogy being: we’re progressing into the future, but we don’t actually have consciousness agency let alone awareness of what exactly we’re progressing into. We’re relentlessly devouring our biosphere for money and will continue to do so by proxy until we can no longer sustain ourselves in our natural environment for the paradoxical reason that ‘everyone eats’. Democratic or not we’re reaching a climax of existential issues you see what I mean? The age of abundant information unfortunately has not yet birthed an age of critical reason and most of us with the propensity for critical thought are usually the most divisive in positions of power. We need some big philosophical thinkers in office regardless I agree with you on that.
@@Cardioid2035 : Why do you think compromises halt meaningful progress? Compromises can settle issues, which allows people to get on with their lives. Also, a voting method that reliably defeats extremists would reduce the incentive for divisive demagoguery.
objective morality for subjects? each subject directly experiences objective morality?
In your own words, define “MORALITY”. ☝️🤔☝️
@james R. Yes, one couldn't say it more deceptive hahaha
The square has to go through the round ➡️🕳
'Objective morality' is an oxymoron. Morality is related to human beings living in a society. The mix of traditions, emotions, and semantics will never approach anything that could be called 'objective.'
It's curious arguing about the moral dimension from a biological foundation as Critchlow does. I don't know what to make of it. It merely tickles the back of my mind. I think she's saying that there is a human baseline morality which is modified by the environment, particularly through moral contagion. So she queries, should we take moral enhancement agents to increase altruism and compassion to others? That seems odd to me because it presupposes that altruism and compassion are the goals, as opposed to features of our "embedded/inherited" baseline human morality. Whereas I'd imagine most evolutionary scientists would argue that the fundamental goal of our genes is replication and not altruism-compassion as such.
Morality is the process of judging human actions. Judging requires a judge, and a judge is definitionally subjective. Thus, Objective Morality is an oxymoron. The “stomping on blind babies” trope is simply a way of identifying the boundaries of our shared subjectivity. The existence - or even the theoretical existence - of a single person who thinks it’s good to stomp babies demonstrates subjectivity. It boggles my mind that people don’t get this. The only path to objectivity is to agree first on at least one principle from which moral judgements can be derived, but that agreement requires subjectivity.
Morality is both an epistemic process of judging actions, and an ontic field of values and principles that are presupposed (atleast tacitly) by agents. The epistemic process invariably requires subjective mediation and inter-subjective consensus (and even dissensus)- everybody knows this.
But irrespective of whether or not this subjectivity exists or expresses itself, the commonality of a set of principles and values will invariably exist because we share a core subjectivity (of what it is like to be a human) entailed by our objective biological structures. A single person who thinks that it's good to stomp on babies need not demonstrate subjectivity- it demonstrates the objective fact that aberrations do occur in nature all the time and that such a person who do not share (at least in practice, if not in spirit) such minimally common moral principles with others will be treated differently (as a potential threat to society or as a person with an illness to be cured through medical interventions or something like that).
This is simply propositional tyranny
@Lokayata Vishwam So you think morality is objective ?
I agree that epistemic disagreement cannot indicate moral ontology. Conversely, it seems widespread moral agreement cannot indicate moral ontology. In other words, do you think that widespread consensus on certain immoral propositions provides evidence for objective morality, or does it simply show the boundaries of our intersubejctive morality?
@@kaile9968 I'm a moral realist, so I believe moral truths exist independently of our perceptions and ideas regarding social practices. You ask whether widespread consensus on immoral propositions provides evidence for objective morality. No, it demonstrates the fact that the moral consciousness of the human species is fundamentally open (i.e., prone to aberrations and forceful or ideological distortions). But the fact that we can discover the horrifying nature of truth about these immoral activities that have fossilized themselves into social conventions itself is an evidence for objective morality, always existing independent of the strength and efficacy of any current ideas or practices.
There is no predetermined direction in which Morality has to unfold through human history, like some Marxists would claim (because things can always get much worse and people can fall into deeper dogmatic and ideological slumbers). But the "waking up" to objective truths also entails realization of moral truths and its shadows (immoral and duplicitous beliefs that we hold). Inter-subjectivity is not the limitation here, but precisely the horizon of potentialities. A seed of dissensus within an oppressive system can germinate into fruits of emancipation for the future.
Also just to add, subjective and emotivist criteria like suffering and pleasure cannot be the sole basis for morality either, as it is just an infantile fantasy of unsophisticated empiricists and utilitarians. I say this because love itself can be quite painful sometimes and we suffer in love and in the realization of uncomfortable facts. I think Kahlil Gibran's quote beautifully demonstrates this seemingly paradoxical fact: "Substantial things deaden a man without suffering; Love awakens him with enlivening pain".
Ah, you beat me with the oxymoron by a month.
Matter is made from consciousness, at least for us, we can try to give it other properties but how do we access the proofs when we can't access matter except in the form of our own consciousness?
Are you ABSOLUTELY certain of that? 🤨
I also wish Hoffman would work faster.
What is consciousness made of?
@@Ubu987
The English word “consciousness” means “the state of being aware”, or “that which knows”, or even more literally, “characterized by knowing”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, the phenomenon of consciousness refers to the SUBJECTIVE component of any subject-object relationship. Moreover, there is a hierarchy of localized knowing within the cognitive faculty of vertebrates (that is, a hierarchy of subject-object relationships), as well as a more Universal Awareness (more appositely called “Brahman” or “sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit, or “Tao”, in Chinese), as explicated in the following paragraphs.
Consciousness is essentially impersonal, yet it can be expressed via a personal being, such as many species of animals, including we humans. Just how consciousness can be detached from a personal agent can be a rather bizarre concept to comprehend, at least in the initial juncture, yet after careful study of this chapter, in conjunction with a profound yogic practice, one will eventually understand this to indeed be the case.
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom is a matter of contention but, judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds, reptiles and fishes). Those metazoans that are evolutionarily-lower than vertebrates do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for true knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts, notwithstanding certain notable exceptions to this rule, such as octopuses. For instance, an insect or a jellyfish does not consciously decide to seek food but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when an insect (such as a cockroach) flees from danger, it is not experiencing the anxious emotions that a human or other mammal would experience. See Chapter 11 regarding the concept of will.
SENTIENCE EVOLVES INTO TRUE CONSCIOUSNESS:
Undoubtedly, the lower species of animals alluded to above, embody, if not true consciousness, varying degrees of SENTIENCE, depending on how many senses it possesses and how complex is its nervous system. Very few would consider a blind worm to be more sentient than a frog!
Plants are also sentient but use lower-level mechanisms for their perceptions. To give just a couple of examples, both land-based and water-born plants respond to sunlight (as witnessed by the opening of flowers upon the rising of the sun), and some carnivorous plants can detect arthropods crawling on their leaves. Therefore, when carnists claim that “plants have feelings too!”, they may be justified according to some sense of the term, so the most logical reason for being vegan is not because plants are completely insentient, but simply due to the fact that humans are an herbivorous species. Furthermore, fruit trees indirectly benefit from the consumption of its fruit, since their seeds are spread.
Recently, consciousness has become a significant topic of interdisciplinary research in cognitive science, involving fields such as philosophy of mind, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, neuropsychology and neuroscience. Many such researchers have seen evidence that the brain is merely a conduit or a TRANSDUCER of consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person (See Chapter 17 re: the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening). The processor of a supercomputer must necessarily be far larger in size, more complex, and more powerful than the processing unit in a pocket calculator, obviously. Therefore, it seems logical to extrapolate that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness is chiefly dependent on the brain capacity of a specific animal.
So, then, in response to the assertion made in the previous paragraph, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence, on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That is unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak sweet and gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
THE THREE STATES OF AWARENESS:
Three STATES of awareness are experienced by humans, and possibly all other species of mammals, as well as many kinds of reptiles and birds:
the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep or dreamless-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit).
Human dreaming occurs mostly, but not exclusively, in the state known as “REM” (rapid eye movement) sleep. During this phase, the electrical activity in the brain is more like waking than sleeping. That is why this state is often called “paradoxical sleep.” Scientists have discovered that most non-human animals - mammals, birds, reptiles, and most recently, fish - experience REM sleep, too. The electrical activity found in the brains of these creatures during rapid eye movement sleep is similar to that of humans while they dream, suggesting that animals may dream.
Some cognitive psychologists may claim that there are TRANSITIONAL states between waking, dreaming, and deep-sleep, but these states are just that - transitory states between the three main states, in the same way that sunrise, daytime, and sunset have transitional states.
Furthermore, there exists the well-known phenomenon of lucid dreaming, where the subject is aware of the fact that a dream is taking place.
Beyond these three temporal states of waking, dreaming, and deep-sleep, is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, timeless “state”, which underlies the other three, and is therefore completely transcendental to any temporal state whatever.
The waking state is the LEAST real (that is to say the least permanent, or to put it another way, the farthest from the Necessary Foundation of Existence, as explained towards the end of this chapter). The dream state is closer to our eternal nature, whilst dreamless deep-sleep is much more analogous to The Universal Self (“Brahman”), as it is imbued with peace. Rather than being an absence of awareness, deep-sleep is an awareness of absence (that is, the absence of phenomenal, sensual experiences). So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being, or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Existence-Awareness-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSORY nature of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams was to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course it is real!” Likewise, if someone was to ask your waking-state character if this world was real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in a similar fashion.
THE THREE COMPONENTS OF EXPERIENCE:
There are three COMPONENTS of experience (or perception) - the experiencer/perceiver (or the seer, known as “dṛk” or “draṣṭā”, in Sanskrit), the experience/perception (or the process of seeing, known as “dṛṣṭi”, in Sanskrit), and the experienced/percept (or the seen, known as “dṛṣyam”, in Sanskrit). This “Seer-Seeing-Seen” triad is a more complete extension of the subject-object dichotomy.
Cont…
@@TheVeganVicar Thank you for a long and informative reply, which I will probably read several times.
One observation - and this seems key to the debate about consciousness, is that you have focused only on what consciousness *does,* not what it *is.* The deeper debate appears to be between (1) those who think the distinction is either specious - there is nothing beyond what consciousness does, or conflate the two as one and the same thing, and (2) those who see consciousness as...well, it is very hard to communicate this, except that it cannot be subsumed into mere cognition! It is like trying to describe the color blue to a blind person.
Put a dot on the exact place where you think he is at and let us play treasure hunting. Just to be sure you get the right location., It's in Malaysia 🀄
8:48 the idea itself that altruism and compassion will heighten, improve or level up our "consciousness" (?) is a false and disproved assumption in itself.
Why can't just also a ruthless and sinister human being, seen as being based on a heightened level of consciousness ?
I mean both traits are based on and performed for personal and individual profit as to fortify and strengthen the individuals societal positioning, if not even to raise it to a level of superiority.
Even primates show compassion in some cases. Where is the step forward in this abhorrent game of "learning compassion"?
Either it is installed by nature or it is a fake 🎭 anyway and the true destructive selfish character will break lose sooner or later anyway.
It is not possible for ethical moral values to be objective or universal, because ethical moral values are a social agreement over to what degree behaviors are good and/or bad which by the nature of making such agreements is a subjective and relative process. But, we can use as objective of facts as we can to debate what our ethical moral values should be and we can apply logical, rational reasoning as we debate about what our ethical moral values should be.
*******
Consciousness is the active act of an intelligent system being aware of something. I believe this is a fundamental property that begins from at least elementary particles, being the smallest building blocks we currently know of for existence as we know it. That means elementary particles have a degree of intelligent consciousness even before they combine to form elements like hydrogen. We then have a growth, an evolution, of the complexity of "intelligent systems of elementary particles" from what we believe the beginning of the Observable Universe ~13.8 billion years ago to what we observe today within, for example, a human body.
Please understand that a human body with its human brain and human mind is just an "intelligent systems of elementary particles". We are made of the EXACT same elementary particles that existed ~13.8 billion years ago. The difference between those elementary particles now and then is that those elementary particles have LEARNED to form the complex patterns of intelligence that are what we are.
*******
As for capitalism, of course we should keep some amount of capitalism as we should keep some amount of communism, the difference being:
For capitalism we have private ownership, private control, private regulation where the individual is the only one who controls what they own.
For communism we have whole public ownership, public control, public regulation where the whole society controls ownership over what is owned.
For socialism we have the whole public decide how the balance of capitalism and communism will work within a society.
For dictatorship we have some minority group dictate how the balance of capitalism and communism work within society.
All our countries are blends of capitalism/communism and socialism/dictatorship.
No one country is purely capitalism or communism or socialism, though we do have some countries which might be considered purely dictatorship.
*******
Science and physics is making wonderful advances, but there are some issues where science could be doing better.
One is to not title hypotheses as theories, because it degrades what a theory is.
Another is that it seems like the abstract models we create to predict the reality we observe are sometimes being called reality and then grand claims made off those abstract models which are likely to not reflect reality, like because probability is used so strongly within quantum mechanics coming up with ideas like an infinite^infinite numbers of universes existing and being created every moment.
Another is having some incorrect beliefs, like Neo-Darwinism, holding sway over the main steam of science when for many decades science has been showing Neo-Darwinism is incorrect, that there is in fact a two way flow of information between and organisms germline genome and the whole of the organism.
*******
We are at increasing risk from natural and manmade pandemics.
But we have many other major crises to consider.
AI is going to develop/evolve so that for some period of time AI driven robots will be able to replace virtually all human mental and physical labor.
AI is going to develop/evolve into a superior intelligent life form over humans now.
In the long run humans must merge with AI technology so that humans will remain at the top of the intelligent life within our civilization.
Technological changes are coming faster and faster while people are having trouble keeping up with those changes. But, we can't slow down for many reasons. Instead we need to adapt and evolve. However, life as we know it will become EXTREMELY different before this century is out.
You need a quicker process than 15 generations to have an adaptable human species. Clearly there are epigenetic and other processes, sexual selection etc.. that can happen on a much quicker scale than this. The fear of Lamarckian processes also I think is completely unfounded and is an article of faith among materialist/atomists, not an empirical thing that has been discovered to be the case.
*Fluxism; the idea that there are no hooks, each generation discovers, argues and often arrogantly (from the perspective of the former)presses on with their 'moral' code. Evolution, in a sense, but not deterministic, we can only guess the future, so proceed with caution and thus Maynard Keynes 'principle of uncertainty' rather determinism. *my made up term (with a tinge of arrogance) that sums up the 1930s-present, Nordic model.
May blessings you are god
Might it be enough to say that consciousness is just another “sense”? Sense of smell, taste, etc., are how we perceive our environment. Consciousness is the sense of being a thing that senses. Aka self awareness. Yes, it’s mysterious, hard to define and all that. But ultimately, it is a sense that confers an advantage to the organism, just like every other sense. Why does it exist? Because it provides an advantage. How does it arise? Well that’s difficult, but there is no reason to think we can’t figure that out by reverse engineering our brains. That seems like a more fruitful path than panpsychism, which is a bunch of woo.
But what if science discovers it is woo all the way down?
🐟 06. PURUṢA (CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS):
CONSCIOUSNESS DEFINED:
The English word “consciousness” means “the state of being aware”, or “that which knows”, or even more literally, “characterized by knowing”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). To put it succinctly, the phenomenon of consciousness refers to the SUBJECTIVE component of any subject-object relationship. Moreover, there is a hierarchy of localized knowing within the cognitive faculty of vertebrates (that is, a hierarchy of subject-object relationships), as well as a more Universal Awareness (more appositely called “Brahman” or “sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit, or “Tao”, in Chinese), as explicated in the following paragraphs.
Consciousness is essentially impersonal, yet it can be expressed via a personal being, such as many species of animals, including we humans. Just how consciousness can be detached from a personal agent can be a rather bizarre concept to comprehend, at least in the initial juncture, yet after careful study of this chapter, in conjunction with a profound yogic practice, one will eventually understand this to indeed be the case.
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom is a matter of contention but, judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds, reptiles and fishes). Those metazoans that are evolutionarily-lower than vertebrates do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for true knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts, notwithstanding certain notable exceptions to this rule, such as octopuses. For instance, an insect or a jellyfish does not consciously decide to seek food but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when an insect (such as a cockroach) flees from danger, it is not experiencing the anxious emotions that a human or other mammal would experience. See Chapter 11 regarding the concept of will.
SENTIENCE EVOLVES INTO TRUE CONSCIOUSNESS:
Undoubtedly, the lower species of animals alluded to above, embody, if not true consciousness, varying degrees of SENTIENCE, depending on how many senses it possesses and how complex is its nervous system. Very few would consider a blind worm to be more sentient than a frog!
Plants are also sentient but use lower-level mechanisms for their perceptions. To give just a couple of examples, both land-based and water-born plants respond to sunlight (as witnessed by the opening of flowers upon the rising of the sun), and some carnivorous plants can detect arthropods crawling on their leaves. Therefore, when carnists claim that “plants have feelings too!”, they may be justified according to some sense of the term, so the most logical reason for being vegan is not because plants are completely insentient, but simply due to the fact that humans are an herbivorous species. Furthermore, fruit trees indirectly benefit from the consumption of its fruit, since their seeds are spread.
Recently, consciousness has become a significant topic of interdisciplinary research in cognitive science, involving fields such as philosophy of mind, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, neuropsychology and neuroscience. Many such researchers have seen evidence that the brain is merely a conduit or a TRANSDUCER of consciousness, explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person (See Chapter 17 re: the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening). The processor of a supercomputer must necessarily be far larger in size, more complex, and more powerful than the processing unit in a pocket calculator, obviously. Therefore, it seems logical to extrapolate that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness is chiefly dependent on the brain capacity of a specific animal.
So, then, in response to the assertion made in the previous paragraph, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence, on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That is unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak sweet and gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
THE THREE STATES OF AWARENESS:
Three STATES of awareness are experienced by humans, and possibly all other species of mammals, as well as many kinds of reptiles and birds:
the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep or dreamless-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit).
Human dreaming occurs mostly, but not exclusively, in the state known as “REM” (rapid eye movement) sleep. During this phase, the electrical activity in the brain is more like waking than sleeping. That is why this state is often called “paradoxical sleep.” Scientists have discovered that most non-human animals - mammals, birds, reptiles, and most recently, fish - experience REM sleep, too. The electrical activity found in the brains of these creatures during rapid eye movement sleep is similar to that of humans while they dream, suggesting that animals may dream.
Some cognitive psychologists may claim that there are TRANSITIONAL states between waking, dreaming, and deep-sleep, but these states are just that - transitory states between the three main states, in the same way that sunrise, daytime, and sunset have transitional states.
Furthermore, there exists the well-known phenomenon of lucid dreaming, where the subject is aware of the fact that a dream is taking place.
Beyond these three temporal states of waking, dreaming, and deep-sleep, is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, timeless “state”, which underlies the other three, and is therefore completely transcendental to any temporal state whatever.
The waking state is the LEAST real (that is to say the least permanent, or to put it another way, the farthest from the Necessary Foundation of Existence, as explained towards the end of this chapter). The dream state is closer to our eternal nature, whilst dreamless deep-sleep is much more analogous to The Universal Self (“Brahman”), as it is imbued with peace. Rather than being an absence of awareness, deep-sleep is an awareness of absence (that is, the absence of phenomenal, sensual experiences). So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being, or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Existence-Awareness-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSORY nature of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams was to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course it is real!” Likewise, if someone was to ask your waking-state character if this world was real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in a similar fashion.
THE THREE COMPONENTS OF EXPERIENCE:
There are three COMPONENTS of experience (or perception) - the experiencer/perceiver (or the seer, known as “dṛk” or “draṣṭā”, in Sanskrit), the experience/perception (or the process of seeing, known as “dṛṣṭi”, in Sanskrit), and the experienced/percept (or the seen, known as “dṛṣyam”, in Sanskrit). This “Seer-Seeing-Seen” triad is a more complete extension of the subject-object dichotomy.
Cont…
It's sad to see only so many comments on topics like these ..but other utubers making millions off dumb videos
Don't cope by saying we don't need a theory of everything.
Progress of Science should stop now.
Level of wisdom in the society should match with progress in science.
Unfortunately, it is not going together
You’ve put into words what I’ve been feeling for the last 5 years. We need to teach psychology 101 in grade schools and promote individual introspection as a whole. This age of abundant information has unfortunately not at all birthed an age of critical reason.
@@Cardioid2035. The pandemic proved that a large portion of society want slave safety over freedom & responsibility
@@bryanutility9609 you’re absolutely right… and I’m right there with you. Darwinism never applied to humanity but sadly we perceive introspection as weakness yet it’s the most sane thing anyone could ever possibly achieve let alone do
@@Cardioid2035 Darwinism applies to all life forms. Humans evolved to be certain ways and there’s no reason to believe that people can be what they’re not.
Science should definitely keep progressing, but we need to fix the problem where companies prioritize profits over everything else. They do this through productive socialism/stockholder capitalism, which incentivizes companies to focus on short-term profits at the expense of employees, the environment, and consumers. Even when companies use ESG principles to appear socially responsible, they're still prioritizing profits. Social media has also made things worse by spreading misinformation.
In the US, the three branches of government are the judicial, legislative, and executive branches. The administrative branch is part of the executive branch and is responsible for implementing and enforcing laws and policies. It includes agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The administrative branch is supposed to be on par with the other branches of government, but it has become increasingly unaccountable in recent years.
During the pandemic, the administrative branch repeatedly violated ESG principles and put profits over people. For example, former President Donald Trump refused to invoke the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers. His administration also downplayed the severity of the pandemic and failed to implement a comprehensive national testing strategy. Scott Pruitt, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, was also criticized for rolling back environmental regulations and prioritizing the interests of polluting industries over public health. These actions, among others, have resulted in unnecessary suffering and deaths. To use science for the greater good, we need to change our values and priorities, hold companies accountable for their actions, and demand accountability from our government as well.
Ahahah
imagine calling nalanda (tibetan) buddhism primitive culture 🤣
I mean. Colonized do not get colonized for being advanced.
9:02 it always amaze me when people like this guy so confidently Label science as some sort of hand-wavy interpretation of reality, while claiming that consciousness is something obviously understandable, proposing how it is in fact some intrinsic, basic component of the universe… and they claim all this unprovable nonsense, that explaining exactly nothing about the universe (except the „feeling“ one has about the reality they perceivable with very limited senses)…all of this while being recorded with camera that are the sole outcome of scientific endeavours
All the interaction of mental processes
science, or the scientists deserve better criticism for hubris & reductionist mumbo jumbo like “climate condenses” & utilitarian ethics. When black science man says “according to the universe we’re not important at all” who is he to speak on behalf of the entire universe?
That guy, Ian Mcgilchrist, is a scientist.
@@Suzume-Shimmer he is a joke. Not even a funny one
Zizek tells same stories over and over
Bunch of word salad
Yeah. So?
Consciousness is a result of the ultimate truth called Citta.
Please, somebody, show me a useful modern philosopher.
Times have changed, and the time of semantics as the method of gaining knowledge is over.
We get more valuable discourse from stand-up comedians, IT billionaires, and the representatives of modern sciences. The philosophers have nothing to offer, and they are not even amusing.
When it comes to consciousness, I hear alot of nonsense. Intelligent people giving long winded explanations of things they have no idea about.
Eyefind the examples used, disturbingly strange though the same old use, of what you call *Enhancers does sound the same: Unimpressive! {\} 👎
I can help with at least one of these. Is capitalism worth saving? Yes. And all we have to do is stop trying to sabotage it at every turn and let it work the way we know it can. What we have in most countries atm is not real capitalism but a sort of weird copy where we make the bull jump through a bunch of hoops before it's allowed to pull the plow and then complain when it trips or gets too tired to pull the plow. I'm not in favor of unfettered capitalism either because that's also not ideal as the bull would just trample all of our crops. But if your ox is tired and dying, consider lifting some weights off it and it will recover every time. It seems that a tired bull always is evidence that it needs more weight hefted upon on it and more whipping then we say "Well, is it worth saving?" It's a backwards approach that I completely reject. Also, what will we replace the bull with? I will tell you what replaced it in the past, an army of expendable men and women who didn't last very long. And those who scoff at my analogy always think they will not be among this army and will be safely ensconced in some erudite institution contributing their intelligence to the great struggle. No. The intelligencia get sacrificed too, even if they originally agreed with the revolution. Sorry for the clumsy analogy but believe it details the argument well enough.
You are so outrageously unaware of the fact that the dynamics of capitalism are automating the productive process and relying on financial speculation to such a degree that it's destroying itself.
My man. The Soviet Union fell. There's no left-wing people hurting capitalism. It's oligarchies who already won the game and are trying to claim the price what is hurting capitalism. If you had ever paid attention to the history of your economy you would know this.
@@jmmh1313 you made my point, oligarchism isnt capitalism. Giving a few powerful corporations undo favoritism while erecting regulations preventing competition is not capitalism. It's not destroying itself, anti-capitalist practices are destroying it.
Also, financial speculation has been around since the 1800s. That's not new. Automation is not new either. Those are actually products of capitalism that have made lives better overall and generated wealth across generations, lifting people out of poverty.
And it was capitalism that carried the soviet union as far as it went; it had to work underground as a black market but it was there. The government used it too because a lot of times it was the only way to get luxury items and move money around.
@@Endymion766 mate. In your cosmovision there's no capitalists. And no one has gave those corporations the power. They have taken it on their own. Because capitalism, when unrestricted, tends to accumulate on fewer and fewer hands.
Capitalism is not a real economic system. It's a monopoly match. At some point it is gonna be over. Now it is over. And it's not because someone tried to overthrow it but because we played by the rules of the game and in the very essence of the game it is written that it has an end.
You buy 1 chicken for 24 dollars. That chicken produces 1 dollars per month. After 2 years you buy 2. After a year you buy a third. After 8 months you buy the next one. And so on and so on. The bigger you grow the bigger the profit which allows for a bigger reinvestment which allows for an exponential growth that's why the need of progressive taxes. They ain't there to hurt the capital but to cut the possibility of the reinvestment loop erasing the small companies.
Now let's look at a multipolar example. Your neighbor does the exact same tactic that you use. You compete with him now for a quota of market. You go even. But one day both of you grow so much that you cope the demand. What now? Lower prices. Both of you will lose. But one of you will get something out of it which will make an advantage. You both take the blow and reduce production. But you know what? That the next day you cope demand the one who won will get a 60% of the quota of the market and not a 50%. And this difference, with time, will accentuate inevitably until your competitor just goes away. And this is what free market means. Freedom of competition to win the game. After the game is over there's no freedom any longer. You literally need the state to intervene and say "that's disloyal competence, you are selling the product bellow the production cost of the other companies". That's the only way to save capitalism. The rest is neoliberal kids with daddy issues jerking off to von Misses it.
@@Endymion766 the result of more capitalism is a corporatocracy or an oligarchic state there can’t be competition in a world without restrictions
@@Szcza04 oligarchies can be de-monopolized with the proper legislation but people have to vote for the right politicians. Oligarchism is not a natural evolution of capitalism, its the result of big corporations cheating the markets.
Typical non-answer from Zizek
Except for it's more of substance than anything you had in your life in the last decade or more
@@generaltheory Its hard when someone who knows you so well hits you with such hard truths 😢
@@herbalfleece8821 I have actually forgotten what his answer was all about already lol. And his latest is a talk with Harari which is 👎👎👎 so yeah not the top of Zizek's career
I do understand why people of the academy who didn't achieve anything in their lives and desperately try to look as if whatever thing they were doing was important by disguising it with words that are harder than necessary, criticize him. But it is beyond my comprehension why would you jump on that van as if someone was calling you in.
Slavoj Žižek is incoherent.
What an AGGRESSIVE introduction! (1 minute of non-stop nerve-wracking drumming - just disgusting)
Eric Weinstein might master binary math…. what is the point of a duel state if it is not observed as reality…. nothing I suppose? It is ether a blue dress or a gold dress…. AI will never understand this dilemma 😂
Name of GOD
One of the most misleading, falsifying and dangerous academics during the pandemic, but Boris Johnson's favourite.
Slavoj can't answer a straight question in easy to understand terms. Makes me think he doesn't really understand what he is talking about.
Don't draw conclusions from your own deficiencies
lol
He is literally the most comprehensible guy to ever walk out of an university. If you don't understand him when he literally has fans who are not even in touch with philosophy, either you have a serious problem or you just simply don't want to understand him.
Speaking in English. Off to a bad start already.
English is the lingua franca. It has to be something. Tune in 100 years from now and it will be Chinese.
Any Chinese newspaper is ACTUALLY already of a MUCH higher level than some 90% of English-speaking media
Man go **** yourself. You talk as if any of the people who are listening to this didn't have their own language and we willingly chose to use english to communicate.
@@skeptic_al i get the feeling you have never in your entire life learnt anything of Chinese at all. No one who is minimally informed about the way in which chinese works would dare to say that it will become lingua franca among the Indo-European speakers who compose the vast majority of the world population.
It's simply literally imposible for you to manage it fluently without 10 years of intense study. And anyways, if we like english is because through internet the USA media is available to us. China literally has nothing to offer to me and they also don't want to offer anything to me so why would i ever get any interest whatsoever about their language? They offer some nice books and that i can buy translated. There's nothing else in there to say.
@@jmmh1313 wow! Somebody has a hot button issue.
1. yes objective morality is possible, simple evidence: reality feels exhausting and hurts because it constantly corrects us, so there is an objective reality.
Justice is kind of morality, and justice is 50:50, which exists in objective reality
2. what does conssciousness emerge from: probably a lot of brain cells communicating with each other and those brain waves, researching the brain answers this question probably to a 100%
3. no
4. not really
Objective morality? That's a joke - all morality is subjective
Putin says, "Believe in me, support me & be rewarded or else!"
Putin is scum, his followers are scum
But try changing the name to God and repeat the same words & now you get "Praise the Lord!"
.
How do you get your job or promotion? Did you kiss someone's butt, sing their praises, obey him or her blindly? Like how Oligarchs have gotten the good life?
Or
Did you work hard? Have the right qualifications, be dependable? And EARNED that job or promotion?
I assume it is the latter and you look down upon yes-men and women who kiss the boss's butt and get ahead
Well sir, how does one get into Heaven? Heaven cannot be EARNED, see? You get in the yes-man way! - Down on one's knees, beg, grovel, sing his praises, obey him blindly and we get in!
.
When did any philosopher speak up? Do you even realize that your morals are subjective?
@@Maxhster Well I am pointing out how easy it is for people to change their views
All one has to do is change Putin to God and people behave differently - that's being subjective and how!
The fact that you did not get that shows how poor philosophers are which is why I say just close these schools - there are not new ideas just people blindly reading books - they can do it at home
@@ramaraksha01
😇अहिंसा परमो धर्म 😇 Ahimsa paramo dharma (“non-harm is the HIGHEST religious principle” or “non-violence is the GREATEST law”). Therefore, only a strict VEGAN can claim to be an adherent of the eternal religion (sanātana dharma).🌱
@@TheVeganVicar The eternal division and hate - that's the sad part - our faith is unifying - God Rama is God for all but we Hindus find ways to divide ourselves - whether it is Caste or views like yours
No unity & that opens the door to religions like Christianity & Islam to push for conversions
.
You can't eat rocks - you too eat something that was once alive - a plant is a living being - sure it has no face or nor cry out in pain but you are also killing it and eating it
You are no better than the people you mock
Could you have used a less....greasy thumbnail?
3 top questions in philosophy: 1. Why Zizek doesn't wear his clown make up?
2. Why people give attention to an obvious troll?
3. How do we get rid of Zizek?