Re: "tacitly," "taciturn" means you don't talk hardly at all. Not that you can't talk, just that you don't. You're talking about something happening without it being spoken of.
Thank for for posting this! I don't have a lot of time to explore the source texts but I'm very interested in this & other topics on your channel and your narration is a god send
Suggestion: can you consider doing episodes on the conservative tradition (from “Burke to Peterson”), as I think we absolutely must understand their arguments and influence beyond just saying “they’re afraid of change" - kind of like you did with Smith and Ricardo leading to Marx. What makes their arguments work? This is especially relevant to the eerie recent phenomenon of young men (I'm talking like 19 year olds) who are interested in the humanities avoiding university courses because of “the wokes”, and going to TH-cam channels that discuss the humanities that are more and more outing themselves as reactionary (sadly like Michael Sugrue, a popular destination for those young men - and some women too). I’m starting to see outright hero worship in those spaces for authors who got their reputation by being iconoclasts, and explicit deification for “time tested ideas” over the democratisation of thought and questioning the tradition. This isn't something 19 year olds are known for. Maybe those are separate topics, maybe young men drifting into those spaces is its own separate issue, I'm not sure, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it and what you think we can do to get them out of there, especially as they tend to listen to other men more.
As a “conservative” (not here to debate just to inform you of my perspective on the issue) there is a tendency in the various fields of what we could call deconstructionist politics to view all conservatism as the same because it all endorsed the existence of a structure of some kind, and in general these tend to get lumped together on the degrees of violence or vitality which are observed (or suspected) from each movement. The various strains of conservatism and non-conservative structuralists, however, since they are used to concept of political structures, don’t tend to view these as all being the same and in fact are usually very cognizant of differences, which they take very seriously. That is all to say that while I think it would certainly be interesting for Dave to do a unit on conservative politics, when you say “Burke to Peterson” I have literally no idea what you are talking about. There really isn’t a strong thread from Burke up to Peterson. Peterson is more than a bit strange and I don’t know that he can even be considered a political thinker so much as he is just a random talking head. It would be a bit like referring to a series called “From Schmitt to George W Bush” as a breakdown of conservative thought.
@@DF-wl8njWould you say that the conservative perspective generally denies the possibility of progress? In other words is it the case that an attempt of maintaining structures seems necessary in order to limit the rate of change or is it the case that tradition (i assume that tradition generally is an aspect of conservative thought) denies a possibility of improvement?
@@clarkbowler157 No I don't think so. For example, many people consider James Burnham a conservative, but the Managerial State is rooted in dialectical materialism. Burnham's point could be summarized as "there's a third class between the bourgeoise and the proletariat, and therefore Marxism is wrong that it's dialectically required for the proletariat to seize power from the bourgeoise" "Conservatism" is more like a slur levied at those who reject any given revolutionary ideology, and which glosses over the actual ideology positions of those groups. This is how you get "conservative" members of unipolar socialist states. It's a relative designation, not an objective one, and therefore can't be applied in an absolute sense without implicitly assuming one position is true. I.e., it's inherently a biased description.
Re: "tacitly," "taciturn" means you don't talk hardly at all. Not that you can't talk, just that you don't. You're talking about something happening without it being spoken of.
Thank for for posting this! I don't have a lot of time to explore the source texts but I'm very interested in this & other topics on your channel and your narration is a god send
please, i need to know why eckrich sausage is popping up in the podcast episodes.
Suggestion: can you consider doing episodes on the conservative tradition (from “Burke to Peterson”), as I think we absolutely must understand their arguments and influence beyond just saying “they’re afraid of change" - kind of like you did with Smith and Ricardo leading to Marx. What makes their arguments work?
This is especially relevant to the eerie recent phenomenon of young men (I'm talking like 19 year olds) who are interested in the humanities avoiding university courses because of “the wokes”, and going to TH-cam channels that discuss the humanities that are more and more outing themselves as reactionary (sadly like Michael Sugrue, a popular destination for those young men - and some women too). I’m starting to see outright hero worship in those spaces for authors who got their reputation by being iconoclasts, and explicit deification for “time tested ideas” over the democratisation of thought and questioning the tradition. This isn't something 19 year olds are known for.
Maybe those are separate topics, maybe young men drifting into those spaces is its own separate issue, I'm not sure, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it and what you think we can do to get them out of there, especially as they tend to listen to other men more.
As a “conservative” (not here to debate just to inform you of my perspective on the issue) there is a tendency in the various fields of what we could call deconstructionist politics to view all conservatism as the same because it all endorsed the existence of a structure of some kind, and in general these tend to get lumped together on the degrees of violence or vitality which are observed (or suspected) from each movement. The various strains of conservatism and non-conservative structuralists, however, since they are used to concept of political structures, don’t tend to view these as all being the same and in fact are usually very cognizant of differences, which they take very seriously.
That is all to say that while I think it would certainly be interesting for Dave to do a unit on conservative politics, when you say “Burke to Peterson” I have literally no idea what you are talking about. There really isn’t a strong thread from Burke up to Peterson. Peterson is more than a bit strange and I don’t know that he can even be considered a political thinker so much as he is just a random talking head. It would be a bit like referring to a series called “From Schmitt to George W Bush” as a breakdown of conservative thought.
@@DF-wl8njWould you say that the conservative perspective generally denies the possibility of progress? In other words is it the case that an attempt of maintaining structures seems necessary in order to limit the rate of change or is it the case that tradition (i assume that tradition generally is an aspect of conservative thought) denies a possibility of improvement?
@@clarkbowler157 No I don't think so. For example, many people consider James Burnham a conservative, but the Managerial State is rooted in dialectical materialism. Burnham's point could be summarized as "there's a third class between the bourgeoise and the proletariat, and therefore Marxism is wrong that it's dialectically required for the proletariat to seize power from the bourgeoise"
"Conservatism" is more like a slur levied at those who reject any given revolutionary ideology, and which glosses over the actual ideology positions of those groups. This is how you get "conservative" members of unipolar socialist states. It's a relative designation, not an objective one, and therefore can't be applied in an absolute sense without implicitly assuming one position is true. I.e., it's inherently a biased description.