The updated timeline used in the video is here and in the description too drive.google.com/file/d/1IJkAYcN9w0G9Hy5V6PacYLb4hMlHitCW/view?usp=drive_link There's a lot more I need to add to it, so expect periodic updates! If you didn't see the original timeline video, it's here th-cam.com/video/v7_J_daQkSU/w-d-xo.html
It should be noted that Plato didnt "say" anything. If one were to dig into his letters one may get closer to justifying that claim. [but] He wrote in dialogues. Nothing like "Thus i sayeth". One may wonder why he did that... [Nonetheless] U get Idealism right. And i love that. Still: much work yet ahead of thee, [us] friend. there's No such thing" as nothing" meanwhile -is an excellent song to play in the b/g. Cornell, not Mayer. [Rocks DO write excellent essays] Anyhow:
Small critique TIK but I think you should swap Hume and Burke around: Hume wrote his big work "A Treatise of Human Nature" in 1740, Burke wrote his earliest work "A vindication of natural society" in 1756. That, and Hume was born in 1711, Burke was born in 1729.
It looks like, where Fascism went wrong, was that since in the case of Italy, being a recently created nation of small peninsular states, it was still in a period of expansion, the colonial era was still in effect, and in remembering the Italian nations history, it wanted to revive the Roman Empire. So while it was populist, it was so within the imperialist mindset. Italian Fascism became associated with the Ethiopian invasion and later it's allegiance with Germany In Spain, Fascism is associated with the militarism of the Spanish civil war against the Communist Left, and in Portugal with the Portuguese colonial empire. So when Leftists see small c conservative Populism on the rise in 2024, they make the association with the war years of the 1st half of the 20th century and assume they stand for the same thing. They don't realize that there have been other Populist movements that were not involved with military expansion or civil war. In Canada we had Populist Provincial governments that were voted into office for decades on end and they neve had violent tendencies.
Hitler stated in a 1928 interview, "We might have called ourselves the Liberty Party. We chose to call ourselves National Socialists. We are not Internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just demands of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
@@kwestionariusz1 Yes, or as I described it "racial socialism". Of course, the Marxist Socialists and similar were not happy with that, but the truth hurts when your ideology detaches you from reality.
@@anjecheisenberg5060because denying things without understanding them is mature, and spending the time/effort to have a nuanced opinion is immature. Makes perfect sense!
The ancient Hindu religion also believed the world was entirely made of thought. There is an old story about a king who knew a Hindu philosopher who claimed everything in the world was just thoughts in the mind. To test this theory, the king sent an elephant charging straight at the philosopher who, when he saw it coning ran like hell. The king then said to him, " you said everything is just thoughts, and yet I just saw you running away from that elephant." The philosopher replied, " You THOUGHT you saw me running from the elephant."
Yes this come to us through pythagoras.Idealism is hindu philosophy and use of symbols for magic mainly come from babylon.Pythagoras traveled to babylon and india for knowlegde and came back with this ideas in western world
This sounds like the "perception is reality" trap that leftists fall into. Yes, your individual reality is entirely 'perception'. But that perception is still a cause and affect relationship dictated by the laws of physics. I've met some "really smart people" who couldn't work their way out of this trap. These are the very same people who instantly changed from thinking Im a normal smart guy, to a devil because I 'support' Trump.
@@Klee99zeno Tik is dumb. If he doesn't want people to be fascist why associate it with people's religious beliefs? 🙄 moron. Imagine going through all these hoops just to say you don't like big government.
Just been on Metatrons channel and had to vent in the chat when idiots start on about TIK being a Yasi sympathiser and apologist. Damn TIK you must be hitting home with some of these fools when they have to blatantly lie about your brilliant content! Keep up the good work mate.
You left out the part where the UK says, except Christians. Seems to me it's fine to hate on Christians there, since they are arrested for silent prayer.
Like (white) men they are exempt because they are perceived by the Left as to have power. Racism, sexism and other isms flow from power. Those who have it against those who haven't to oppress it. Therefore women can't be sexist towards men, because they have no power, people of color cannot be racist because they have no power and other belief system can't be prejudiced against Christianity, because they have no power. As TIK once said, marxist may share your language, but they don't share your dictionary. Their accusations and statements NEVER mean what people think they do.
He knows nothing about Christianity. He should read some Josephus (a Jew), and about every atheist I have heard are more educated on the topic. I am not implying his only sources should be Christian. He said Christains believe in an subjective reality, which is crazy. Idk how I am supposed to even listen to his trash anymore if he's going to twist things. He never has a source for his claims about Christainity either.
There’s a lot of hard work behind this explanation. Probably, one of the most clear presentation of what “Fascism” was, in its own Philosophical structure. All explained in a very easy way. Moreover, the difference with Nazism, the consequent “fusion” in Nazifascim. Nice Job TikH!
I'm totally excited about this series! Ever since I read "The Doctrine of Fascism", I realized how we have been massively mislead about what fascism actually is. This series is so important!
I agree with you. And we're mislead right from school. We were just taught a line with Communism on the far left and Fascism and NZism on the far right. Though we did have one teacher who bent that line into a circle and explained how alike they were. He was onto something. This was around 1980.
A. James Gregor was my professor at Berkeley. He wrote my recommendation letter for law school. He had such utter disdain for leftist students. One day, at the start of class, he said that several students had gone to the administration to complain about him. He said, "I have tenure. What are they going to do? Take away my parking space?" It was funny. On a serious note though, he was a great professor.
@@angadsingh9314 Why? It takes a lot of effort to change a constitution. Usually a 2/3rds or 3/4 majority. No party EVER gets such a supermajority. As long as they adhere to the basic rules of political parties why should any party be criminalized for having an abhorrent opinion? You don't have democracy or freedom of speech if new parties that threaten the established ones can be 'verboten' on a technicality. Also, by that logic the US Democrats should be forbidden, as quite a few Democrats, like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have said things that are hostile to the constitution. The 1st and 2nd amendments in particular.
@angadsingh9314 So, all the authors of the Anti-Federalist Papers should have been rounded up? There's a long distance between saying that the Constitution was poorly written, and taking up arms.
No minecraft player ever thought that because when you load the chunks in the world they are loaded for everyone on the server, that the players should thus create an all encompassing collective state in that world.
Give them time. Give them time. If Minecraft isn't already a religion or economic or political philosophy that some nut somewhere might think is worth deleting people over, someone will think of a way to turn it into one in a few years, I guarantee it....
This video did a decent job of explaining one of the great errors in philosophy: the tribalistic camps that have arisen around exclusive ideas. For example, we all have a sense of fairness or justice, but we also understand that fairness or justice is also a matter of practical application. The ideal (idea) of justice or fairness exists in us all, but the application of it varies in practice. The attempt to sever the mindscape from the practical has caused many serious problems in philosophy. The truth is that both of these things necessarily exist.
The greatest baggage from the weird philosophical gobbledygook drawing battle-lines around and through these concepts would be that it completely ignores the fact that perfectly reasonable people can look at something like Justice, and say "well, IDEALLY things would be like that, but this is not an ideal world, and in a PRACTICAL world we would have to admit that sometimes, or most of the time, things are actually very different, or even completely the opposite of the ideal, mostly because human nature runs counter to this ideal...." The usual story of what happens to most lottery winners, for example, highlights the vast gulfs between the ideal world, where a Marxist might believe that giving everyone the same ration of wealth would make everyone equally wealthy, and the practical world, where in fact you could give millions of dollars to the average lottery winner, and in a few years they'll be as poor as they ever were before, and miserable, with a long trail of wreckage behind them, because there's a practical difference between wealth that is obtained easily and wealth that is earned and worked for, and a practical difference between the skills needed to determine what is really valuable and make the most of that value to invest wisely and maintain and build on wealth instead of throw money around on temporary fun and costly status symbols, and a practical difference in the friends that a self-made wealthy person learns how to cultivate and look to for advice and guidance, versus the "friends" who can be counted on to flock to lottery winners looking to mooch on hand-outs, and so on. A great deal of it comes down to a failure of many of these philosophers to make any use of cynicism to temper their idealism: even well-meaning people are corrupt and foolish, they have their bad days, they aren't often very smart even when (or especially when) they are well-educated, sometimes people are downright evil and can use pleasant-sounding ideals to disguise ulterior motives, or find ways to use nice-sounding ideals to further their own worst natures, and so on. A lot of philosophers who were, no doubt, convinced of the best intentions of their own ideals have found that implementing their ideals in the real world brings out the worst in their followers, and themselves, assuming they have the insight and grasp on the reality of what they are doing to realize it. And I find that too many of them even refuse to entertain any question of their ideals, under the conviction that practical or cynical concerns over their ideals are direct threats from a dirty material world to the theoretical purity of their idealism: as long as their ideals can float untouched and unquestioned and unsullied in the purity of a theoretical realm, the aims toward those ideals can be carried out in the material world toward a corresponding material perfection against the resistance of evil anti-philosophers, or something..... As if the material world is actually a reflection of their ideal world, where their ideals make reality, as long as there is nobody else there to contradict them, a problem that could ideally be solved by eliminating people who disagree from reality until the only people who remain are those who can preserve the purity of the ideal.... People don't work that way in the real world, not even the philosophers are free from the "errors" that make the ideals impractical and impossible! The idealists, in other words, do not understand or live in the practical world -and honestly, they don't seem to live in or understand the "material" world, either, being so lost looking at their favorite idealist trees, that they cannot really see very far into their own philosophical forests..... Looking around us, it seems clear to me that we need fewer idealists, dreamers, and philosophers, and more cynics, pessimists, and practical people. Especially in light of the number of people who have been senselessly butchered in the name of idealistic dreams and impractical philosophies and ideologies over the last hundred years alone!
@@pietrayday9915 Exactly so. This stresses the importance of things like decentralized political power and economic models. The academic idealist is hubristic in his ideals and ideologies, and such arrogance leads to power and economic centralization which encourages abuse, exploitation, and is a wonderful way to spread bad ideas universally. By decentralizing political authority and economic action, we reduce the risk of abuse and fraud, among other undesirable effects.
This is why iam a substantial dualist.Both mind and Matter exsist.The apple is there it exsist but our mind due to past experiences regocnizes certain qualities that are found in a bunch of fruits and therefore call them apples despite them being red,green spherical shape or trapesian.We have pattern regocnition abilities.
Considering that the total number of DELETIONS by the Italian fascist security forces against its own citizens equal in the few thousands, that's basically a tuesday to Stalin or Mao. I'd say that socialism DID went far enough.
Technically they argued the Italian Socialist Party didn't go far enough. "Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative." Mussolini
I graduated in Philosophy and Theology, and I look back at it often and just facepalm and think that I did not learn anything of practical value. That's not to say that knowing philosophical history has no value (it has value like learning history in general), just that I sense that I learned more about people's rambling thoughts than anything useful. Today, what I respect is the labourer. By that I don't mean in a Communist sense - I simply mean, anyone who produces or creates something. The act of creation influences reality. Building a building, putting up a podcast, writing code, painting art, managing a business - while philosophy and thought go into these things for sure, my essential thought is that the bulwark and foundation of society matters more than wondering what reality "is." The true philosophers are those who do something.
Creating thoughts can also be highly valuable, (if they are valuable thoughts). Value is always subjective, at least in the way im defining it. So something more often than not has highly different value to different people. A woodmaker would offer way more for the same wood than a plumber. So your thoughts have different value to different people aswell. Thoughts can often be solutions to problems. And the world is full of problems. You don't need to implement the solution to be of value. Enabling it and giving people the right methods also can bring tremendous value. And that is in one part, basically what a consultant does. He helps solve problems, often only conceptually. But there is a very important point: the illusion of knowledge. Tons of people think they know how to solve something or have their theories, but actually they know jack all. Actual solutions are a completly different thing than theories, and therefore one has to use reality as ones master.
Rand would disagree. You need philosophy in order to produce, even if you only hold a philosophy implicitly. For example, you need to know if reality exists or how causality works in order to grow crops or hunt animals for food.
YES. To be fair, though, even the republican/libertarian experiment of the US Constitution was a product of the same revolutionary trail of "liberal" philosophy that produced Fascism, Marxism, and so many of the other "-isms" of the last couple hundred years. The distinguishing characteristic, I would argue, is in the relative skepticism and cynicism of the American Republic, compared to the utopian ideals of competing philosophies: The US Constitution is deliberately written as a maze of interlocking and contradictory checks--and-balances, not because its architects thought it would make for a more efficient and elegant form of perfection for a utopian government led by well-meaning philosopher-kings over a wise and benevolent people... rather, it's designed to hamper and hamstring its own government to the greatest extent possible, in the name of preventing the inevitable cast of corrupt scoundrels and monsters that would try to seize control of it from doing as much damage as possible. The Framers of the Constitution were under none of the illusions that most revolutionaries seem to be bound by, that there is some idealized liberal State on material Earth just waiting for the right idealistic philosophy to be conjured into the sphere of imagination, to lead them towards a utopian world if only they could be freed from the deceptions and limits of some mystical "demiurge" and its Capitalist agents on Earth. Rather, they worked with the understanding that the Republic they were crafting depended on the wisdom and self-restraint of an educated and moral people to keep it on track, but would persist under a built-in time-limit of the inherent imperfection and corruption and laziness and ignorance of man - "A Republic, IF you can keep it!" Too many competing philosophies assume some inherent goodness in man, which can be freed to maintain a "perfect" philosophical construct forever and ever, if only they can be freed to do so through the pure benevolence of the State, perhaps once a class, race, or whatever of unbelievers with competing philosophies has successfully been purged from the earth..... That includes "Our Democracy". One can't help noting with a sinking feeling of dread that "Our Democracy" is assumed to be benevolent and trustworthy to hold absolute power, and cannot withstand the criticism, cynicism, doubt, and pessimism that we could level against the Republic from the day it was founded, up to a few years ago, or even now, while "Our Democracy" races to blot it from American history and replace it with something alien and ominous and un-American..... The Republic worked as long as we all agreed that it was imperfect and best treated with delicacy and suspicion, and restrained from power. "Our Democracy" cannot withstand any doubt or question - every criticism or restraint on its grasp for total power is a "Threat to Our Democracy", and the only imperfection it will admit is that it has not yet successfully purged itself of all dissent and doubt and "fash" restraint on its power in the name of establishing by force a utopia on Earth unbound by "what has been".... I don't trust any government, but I especially distrust any government that cannot be criticized, or which demands absolute power over me, or which insists on its own pure and infallible benevolence in the name of a Utopia that can be achieved if only enough people either shut up, get in line, and follow orders, or just fall as conveniently as possible into a grave on the "wrong side of history".....
@@pietrayday9915And both Adams and Jefferson knew this! That is both, from opposite ends of their contemporary political spectrum, came to the conclusion that a "New Revolution" would be necessary every 5-7 generations. (Andrew Jackson should have been the first of these, but the moment was "passed on," a bad habit of American politics even [Especially] today)
@@pietrayday9915 "To be fair, though, even the republican/libertarian experiment of the US Constitution was a product of the same revolutionary trail of "liberal" philosophy that produced Fascism, Marxism, and so many of the other "-isms" of the last couple hundred years." The US as conceived and in its first 30 years of existence was the closest humanity has come to the true sovereignty of the individual. We've lost that, particularly as a result of the Civil War, but for a brief time it was there. Now the US is basically just a federal republic where sovereignty is reserved to the top of the pyramid and occasionally licensed out to favored groups and classes.
I think what Gentile meant by the world being created by the mind was that it is human action based on ideas, rather than material conditions controlling everything as in Marxism, which dictates its ultimate course in a societal sense.
Even if that is so, as is almost always the case, what a philosopher MEANT is perhaps far less important than what his most active and fanatical followers HEARD, or imagined, or wanted to believe.... th-cam.com/video/NFPIGNua5WM/w-d-xo.html
@@KEK-dd4iu I think it's people, not ideas, that do things. They live(d) their lives, as I live mine. And history is just the stuff that happened before. Nothing needs to 'drive' it for things to happen or to have happened.
29:44 Small correction (kinda). "Looking" can mislead the viewer. Looking at something like a subatomic particle isn't like looking at a screen. You need to use incredibly powerful technology which will interact with the particle. The change in behaviour comes from the interaction between the instruments and the particle.
@Bean-boi I'm afraid you are mistaken. Firstly, the human eye can perceive a single photon so you can in fact sense a solitary quantum event. Yes, to generate some kinds of sub-atomic particles you do need massively powerful particle accelerators like the LHC for creating a Higgs boson, but many other quantum phenomena don't require that at all. Early quantum experiments involved hiring mostly young women to sit in absolute darkness watching scintillation screens for flashes of light from single particles striking the phosphorous. By the way, it is absolutely the case that quantum mechanics cannot describe the process of a measurement and in fact there is not a complete theory that encapsulates the statistics of quantum mechanics and a precise mathematical description of a measurement. Scarily enough measurement in quantum mechanical theory flirts dangerously with idealism in that it is the "observer" who collapses the wave function. Schroedinger's cat is actually a critique of this problem.
@@andrewdelaix You'd kidding right? Are you seriously saying that being in the vicinity of an electron being fired is the equivalent of observing it? That's just not what observation is.
@@Bean-boi An electron interacts with its environment very often, as it interacts with all the electromagnetic fields around it. And gravity as well. Photons do neither of that, so it is easy to observe strange quantum effects with them. In physics, an observation is a measurement of any kind, and is not possible without interaction.
@@Bean-boi An electron hitting a phosphorescent screen generating some photons a few of which hit your eye: all quantum until it hits your eye. I'm saying that the vagaries of quantum mechanics leak right up into your physical senses and that you are in fact a quantum detector.
@@TheImperatorKnight You did, but I'm old and plagued with mental health issues aplenty. I'm bad with remembering details like these, so it needs repetition.
If you are new or just not an expert of philosophy then the book The Quest for a Moral Compass by Kenan Malik is excellent, really helps to frame everything, well, lots...
The best and possibly one of the most important videos of our lifetime to watch. Thank you Tik, your research into what fascism actually is going to make a difference. BTW I think it would be a good idea to do a bite sized book version of this video as they would be handy to give out to people if they ever wanted to have useful information on the key points on this 20th century religion.
Yes, for people who are not immersed in philosophy, it can be very difficult, which is why I spoke slowly and went through it the way I did in the hopes that people would be able to grasp it. Of course, someone has criticsed me saying "you could have said it all in 10 minutes", but my goal is to reach the widest audience as possible, so I had to spend the time to make sure it was all clear.
@@TheImperatorKnight So what am i then Tik? - i dont vote and i dont believe in democracy per say .....because for over all my lifetime i can see fascism at work within our representational democracy/judicial systems, parliament etc in the uk. All im interested in is making sure that our governments , from one government to another , are to be examined with a fine tooth comb under fact and law .....and to made equal under the law with everyday citizens i.e access to one law , one rule , and a shit load of us to make sure that stays universal and equal...no matter if that can create inequality along the way. Law education in schools etc what does that make me?
I have been thinking for a long while that fascism is strongly democratic and the logical conclusion of certain types of demacracy. I guess this will further my reasons to think so. Thanks as always TIK
Yeah. As soon as it's accepted that what a majority or plurality of people think somehow determines right and wrong, you're pretty much doomed to land in the realm of fascism. And manufactured consent is left completely unaccounted for.
@@SepticFuddy I mean, democracy can come in more ways than a majority of people who impose things to others, not only it can come from a minority too but its usually the politician in question who is actually the one in control. People cant see these traits are inherent in one way or another in both democracy and fascism, they swallowed the propaganda that lies clearly about democracy, dont really know what fascism is about and dont see the same traits between the 2. They actually suport both without really knowing. People cant conceive democracy as someone that isnt good (as if the way that something is chosen or imposed said if it is good or bad) therefore these things happen and deny certain things to be democratic
Christianity is considered objective in the sense that we believe in a reality that exists independently of human thoughts or perceptions. According to Christian teachings, God created a real, physical world, and moral truths are grounded in God's nature, making them universally valid and unchanging, regardless of personal beliefs or cultural differences. This belief in a fixed, external reality and absolute moral truth makes Christianity fundamentally objective. Christianity doesn't fit with the idea that reality is just a mental or spiritual construct. I don't understand why TIK says Christians believe in subjective reality and idealism. It seems like he's mixing up Christianity and Gnosticism, which are not the same.
One point of confusion is that there are several different forms of Christianity. Firstly, there are those in the Augustine/Aquinas tradition, which believes in an objective physical world which we can understand beginning with our senses, but with reason and representation building on (and corrected by) what we perceive. Dominician Roman Catholics are probably the most faithful to this tradition, but many (orthodox) Protestants (excluding those which don't tend to focus on philosophy) would also belong to it; while Eastern Orthodox tend to be more neo-Platonists (I do think that one weakness of this video is that it mischarterises the neo-Platonists, who were not the forerunners of idealism to the extent that is implied). The Dominician tradition is probably closer to TIK's own objectivism than most of the rest of the chart (although obviously still differs from it in important respects, such as being theistic rather than atheistic). But on the other hand, you have liberal Protestants and liberal "Catholics" who are very much influenced by Hegel and the traditions that followed from Hegel (and are closer to gnosticism than Christianity). Hegel certainly thought he was rescuing God and what he could of Christianity from the materialists, who he could see were heading towards atheism. But he did it in a way that completely contradicts and undermines apostolic Christianity. Nonetheless, many did follow his lead (or at least were influenced by him to a greater or lesser extent) and still call themselves Christian. This might be the source of TIK's (and Peikoff's) confusion. I also think the video mischaracterises Hume, and the position he attributes to Hume is closer to that of Hobbes. Hume believed that sense impressions form ideas in our minds, which are distinct from the real objects, and any thinking we do (such as attributing certain things as causes and others as effect) is thinking about those ideas, and thus has nothing to do with the real world. Thus talk about cause, effect, secondary qualities, morality, etc. are all fictions, because (according to Hume) they only exist in our minds. The only reliable things are the directly perceived ideas, and abstract proofs in geometry (which are disconnected from the real world). Kant was greatly impressed by Newton's physics, but then also read Hume, and then realised that Hume's thought completely undermined Newton's theories (which would reside in the world of ideas in Hume's thought). So he pulled the trick of saying that they might only exist in the mind, but that doesn't make them any less real than things in the physical world. Thus Newton's laws, God, and so on, could reside in the world of our ideas and have just as much claim to existence as anything in the phenomenological world. This is entirely the wrong answer to the problem, and obviously after Kant things only got worse. Hume is certainly in the empiricist tradition, but he did not deny the human mind or the existence of ideas in the mind as forming our awareness of reality and, as such lies a step between the Materialist Empiricist tradition and Kant. I would also dispute that modern science is Empiricist. It is Empirical, which states that we can make a partial representation of reality, and our thoughts on that representation and theories built on it do tell us something (or a great deal) about reality, but with all of this reasoning carefully constrained and then tested by observation and experiment. The empiricists have observation and experiment, but forbid us from constructing theoretical representations and models on top of this; it denies the usefulness of theoretical science (or certainly do so once we get to Hume). I still think that Ockham and Rosseau ought to be mentioned in any discussion of the origins of the various forms of socialism. Ockham was the father of nominalism (the denial of formal and final causes), and represents the break from the logical and realist (in the sense of accepting universals, albeit in Aristotle's conception subsisting in particular beings rather than some third realm) tradition of Aquinas and the very top of TIK's chart and the modern forms of empiricism and idealism. And the influence of Rosseau, with his belief in fundamental human goodness marred only by individualism, and of a social contract derived from the general will of society, on the development of socialism should be obvious.
"we believe in a reality that exists independently of human thoughts or perceptions." That's idealism and subjective reality. "You believe" is subjective. "Independent of perception" is idealism. Moreover, Christians also believe in a community in spirit, subject to the head consciousness Jesus. So in that sense they are Jesus and the community is in his image. So it's pretty much the same thing as Fascism the way he describes it. Just replace Jesus by Mussolini and you have pretty much the same thing. If you can't see it, just look at Trump and his followers. It's not a fluke that they would worship some guy just because he brandishes a Bible and would allow him to do anything. It's baked into the religion to do that. In fact it IS the religion. He's wrong about the word though, Fas is the divine law as opposed to ius which is human law.
i'm so annoyed not being taught philosophy back in school we should have. Ayn Rand was right when she said that adults are failing kids by not educating us on how to think. The pillars of philosophy are so important. And I got taught I even had a mandatory RE class religion. nobody liked it as very little in the secular school were even religious also I looked up this is mandatory by law.
Ideally, philosophy should be taught to students by almost ANYONE but an actual philosopher. Fortunately for us, I don't think TIKHistory is a philosopher - his skepticism about all the sacred cows of philosophy is a nice breath of fresh air, and does more to clear up the mass of confusion on the subject than any true believer I've ever heard from!
@@pietrayday9915 Yea I get you well as Ayn pointed out it was happening back in 60's I would even say that's when the culture war started. If you read her essays you can see the origins of woke. Something important to learn today. But even without objectivism, they could teach the fundamentals and Aristotle. At least youtube kids will likely find out. But I would rather every kid knew how to rational think. We deffo need it. Sophists are something to fear especially amoral ones. They don't believe in reality and just use rhetoric for arguments appealing to in modern day they appeal to emotion instead of man's reason. It's so easy to appeal to emotion rather than rationalize the ideas you have. Our society will die too these people. If you live in a democracy you are wide open to these people. Remember it was 30 tyrants the oligarchy that took over democracy in Athens. That had more protections than ours. It's what I think is going on with Starmer. He has no morals and changes what he says every time depending on the crowd.
@@pietrayday9915 democrats too I would say are amoral sophists Harris saying nothing and not caring, she just rambles on about nothing important dodging questions. People need to know in order to combat this. And understand what she is doing.
@@pietrayday9915 I would have thought this was all conspiracy theory but sadly it's the truth. nobles had time for these cults. And all our big names were into this stuff. Isaac newton and others. It's such a jump to what I thought the world was. In modern times It used to confuse me that older people tended to go along with the woke crowd. Well I found out that berkley had the free speech movement. That did the exact same thing as 2016 protests that took over unis and took staff hostage. Guess what demands were the exact same safe space both times for students. These people were taught by those people. Which has led to a generation failure with knock on effect. it was not for free speech the name was to get even conservatives on board. As I say they just use rhetoric and simply don't care about reality.
You spent more time thinking about Fascism by watching this video than your average self-proclaimed Fascist has or ever will in his/her entire existence. The aren't Fascist because they are intruiged by the metaphysical concept of pen-ness, they just want to get drunk, belt slogans they don't understand, derive their self-worth from a past that never was and dogpile people slightly different from themselves.
Well, to be fair, the very Scientific Method itself is a product of the same train of philosophical thought that spawned these other beliefs - I believe TIK even mentions that in this video, that the Scientific Method was developed to deal with questions of what is real from the material side of a material/ideal two-sided equation, while all sorts of philosophical weirdness sprang up from the ideal side of the same equation. It's counter-intuitive and weird, perhaps, but perhaps also inevitable, given the nature of philosophy, that something that somehow produced a tool as useful, practical, and valuable as the Scientific Method, can also find a thousand ways to follow its own moments of crazy down the rabbit-holes of idealistic madness to their inevitable conclusions.
The scientific method does the same, it's also based on Plato and idealism. People are supposed to check empirically, but nobody does. What's amazing is that people believe in it, that's the real issue. The consciousness of the scientists creates reality. And altogether, they form a community of scientists, Science itself.
"I think, therefore I am" - Descartes "I am, therefore I think" J.P, Sartre, Stephen Hawking "I am, therefore I am" - Popeye, Stone Cold Steve Austin "I think, therefore I think" - Hegel - (Pure thought thinking about pure thought - characterization by Bertrand Russell) Bishop Berkeley might have changed his mind if Samuel Johnson had connected with a right hook to his nose instead of merely kicking a rock .....
"At first, I thought that these German hermeneuticians were simply ill-served by their translators into English. But my German friends assure me that Heidegger, Gadamer, et al. are equally unintelligible in the original. Indeed, in a recently translated essay, Eric Voegelin, a philosopher not normally given to scintillating wit, was moved to ridicule Heidegger’s language. Referring to Heidegger’s master work, Sein und Zeit (Being and Time), Voegelin refers to the meaningless but insistent repetition of a veritable philosophical dictionary of phrases as the Anwesen des Answesenden (”the presence of that which is present”), the Dingen des Dings (”the thinging of the thing”), the Nichten des Nichts (”the nothinging of the nothing”), and finally to the zeigenden Zeichen des Zeigzeugs (”the Pointing sign of the pointing implement”), all of which is designed, says Voegelin, to whip up the reader “into a reality-withdrawing state of linguistic delirium.”3" Murray N Rothbard
(Hope this is not a dup; clicked CANCEL by mistake, apparently.) "And would monsieur like some dessert?" the waiter asked. "Ahh," replied Descartes, patting his belly, "I think not." And *poof*, he disappeared, not even leaving a tip. The waiter sighed. Would he never learn?
Me: *A serious student of both history and philosophy. Constantly trying to learn more about both, and fascinated by how they interact.* Also me: *Snickering uncontrollably every time TiK says "pen-ness"*
@@ChaptermasterPedroKantor-kv5yw There are certain insights which cannot be conveyed with words. They transform your perspective entirely and afterward the most seemingly outlandish ideas begin to make perfect sense. Its more about experience then words.
@@endo4137 Fun to roleplay as the Lalafell version of a Social Revolutionary. "I fight for the glorious Lalafellian Revolution against the Tall Oppressors. Too long has the Talls thrived off Lalafellian Labor, eating our crops greater than their share. Meanwhile our Lalafellian Farmers and Miners toil in hardship. No more! We shall strike down the talls and take our rightful place at the top of society as the rightful ruling class over all of Eorzea." Can literally picture a Bun giving a head pat shortly after making me go "Quit it! Take me seriously!" lol
There's a reason that back when i took a psychology class back in school the first thing our teacher told us was "Psychology is a kind of philosophy, not a science," He still got a little irritated when I called Sigmund Freud "Freaky Freud". Fun times.
idealism is a major issue. I think it's leading to Amoral sophists in the modern day. I see so many similarities. They say that it's all relative, and social constructs.
@@JamieZero7 the reason is that Marx and Engels are portrayed as if they had agreed on most of the philosophies introduced here on this channel, while in fact they majorly wrote against them.
@@SchmulKrieger They wrote against them, but it's not clear they overcame the basic flaws. You can be an idealist and claim to be a materialist. Marx never really did anything with his hands or checked his theories to see if they were true. It did not stop him from identifying with the working class. He believed in class consciousness which would create a new reality, and Engels believed in syndicalism. The only difference was in the State, but Lenin fixed that.
TIK, while Christianity shares some superficial similarities to the hermetic/socialist/woke Ideology religions, they are just that, superficial. I'm entirely unsure how familiar you are with deeper Christian thought, so if I explain something you already know please don't take it personally. I also onow there's a lot of possibilities for why you'd compare Christianity to the leftist religion, for example most of your Western audience automatically thinks of Christianity when you bring up religion anyways, and not just to denigrate Christianity. I'm just trying to show some of the distinctions which are why the two lead to wildly different outcomes and show how the Christian religion is different from these others. Some examples are: 1. Christianity has universally rejected platonist views and although does believe that God made the world we also believe that world is objective and not made in man's minds. 1a. There is no demiurge in Christian beliefs, the same God that made the world is the God that incarnated himself as Christ. 1b. In addition Christ himself rejected worldly government and said his kingdom is of another world. So anyone trying to bring about that kingdom on this world is foolish at best and downright deceitful and malevolent at worst. 1c. Christianity places no particular emphasis or importance on change or contradiction. If anything we see no contradiction in change because God made the world logically with rules and change is just one of the many consequences of those rules of nature, not some grand mystery. 2. The idea that man makes reality or that men are part of our can become God is called pantheism and is considered a form of idolatry which is wrong and evil in Christianity. 2a. In Christianity God is self conscious and always has been. He needs nothing, from us or anyone else, instead it is us who need him. So there is no god needing to recognize himself, it humanity serving some insane purpose like being a mirror for God. Instead we are simply his children who wishes to love and careful and raise up properly just like any parent should. 3. In Christianity Alruism isn't strictly speaking necessary. While self-sacrifice can be lauded, suicide is a sin. Jesus was quite clear that what is necessary to be saved was to accept him and to fight against sin in oneself. This doesn't mean being perfect, one may still stumble, but it does mean reducing sin and being genuinely apologetic and contrite when one's baser nature does win out and seeking to their change future behavior. Full self-destructive altruism is not required. Christians are supposed to carry out good works yes but this is out of a sense of thankfulness for our salvation and not a prerequisite to it, and even then the call for charity doesn't supercede other responsibilities like those to family, friends, and self. 3a. Christianity doesn't deny desire like Buddhism, we believe that humans' indivuality and desires are a gift from god and thus ought to be expressed. However sometimes those desires can become corrupted and twisted and then one must submit to god and allow him to correct the corruption. 3b. Sins in Christianity are clearly enumerated and are always the result of something good or neutral being taken to excess. Sexual immorality for example is an excess of sexual desire and oftentimes being directed wrongly. Wrath is misplaced anger etc. 3c. While in some situations self sacrifice is good in Christianity, a soldier sacrificing himself to save his friends for example. In cases where it wasn't absolutely necessary it is looked down on. Since Christianity says we were bought with the blood of Jesus, to harm oneself, even in service of another, is to insult God and the price he paid for you. 3d. Lastly all sins are ultimately self-damaging and self-destructive. Even something as simple as lying will eventually get you caught in a lie and lead to consequences. The Enemy, the Devil is the spirit of self-destruction, he seeks to nurture these self-defeating desires in men and weaken them and drive them away from God so he can devour them. Jesus explicitly declared He came that we might have life and have it to the fullest. God in Christianity doesn't want to oppress or arbitrarily restrict people everything He does is for our good. Quite different from the blind and deaf god of the Hegelians. Honestly most Christians would probably say that Hermeticism/Hegelianism is a parasitic corruption of real morality and personally I feel like it is the direct ideology of the antichrist, a sort of false Christianity to try and overpower the real thing and destroy it.
It's still a consciousness that created reality and which you identify with. If someone came and identified with that consciousness, you would gang up, just like Jesus' disciples did. It's literally what the kingdom of Heaven is, a spiritual community. It's no different than those things you think are left, while you are, I suppose right. Hegel is considered on the right as well.
@@OneLine122 not really they're talking about a spiritual hive mind. Whereas a simple voluntary community like Christianity is very different. And please understand that Christianity is voluntary, you don't have to join it. It's just that the natural consequences for not doing so are rather grim.
The basics. The human intellectual ability to invent categories and divide "things" into different categories, while discussing exceptions to said categories. The gradations of certain general categories, like youth and elder, or the phases of the moon (appearance). So much sophistic word games. Slightly valuable, for understanding nuances, but overblown. That's my thoughts on the value of philosophy today.
What you see as blue could be perceived totally different by other beings. Thus, you could like blue color, but others would find it totally repulsive. Which in turn may lead to conflict.
The explaintion of the platonic forms here is extremely shallow. If it does interest you, I'd definitely do some research outside of these videos if it interests you.
As a student of history i came here for the very detailed and well researched battle reports. As a student of the human condition im staying for the deep dive into philosophy and meta physics. Well done Sir Knight
Don't be so mean to Plato, he was thinking big thoughts without the same thousands of years of collective knowledge to draw upon. He was wrong about a lot in hindsight, but many people would not have the imagination to be as wrong as he was, and he and his students built the foundations for almost everything we believe now.
Wow. I'm nothing if I'm not impressed by this. I've developed a model of the political distinctions (which I'm not done explaining on my channel), and until watching this video, I was entirely prepared to accept Fascism as right wing, but especially with the way you wrapped it up, I now have an understanding of it which legitimately makes it a third position, because in a way it tries to assimilate both the attributes I described as motivating the Right and those motivating the Left... This... this is nothing if not elegant. Did I put you in S tier or S-, I need to check. Alright, you're in S. Needed to make sure. Damn. No, my apologies, I'm still stunned by the realization. I'd like to talk some day about this after I release my model. Seriously, nicely done.
After reading "The Doctrine of Fascism" by Giovanni Gentile and Mussolini, I have come to the conclusion that Fascism is just a variation of the Philosopher-King theory of government and includes all of the potential problems with that approach. Violent transition of power, oppression of any minorities' culture and points of view, exploitation of the ruled for the benefit of those in power, etc. A surprising number of great philosophers throughout history have advocated for a philosopher-king type of government since they didn't believe that the general population could rule themselves.
The general population has never ruled itself since the fall of Athenian democracy. What we have in the West now is a Republican form of government dominated by trade
Hey TIK, I wonder what you think of HistoryLegends? His coverage on the Russo-Ukrainian war is superb despite misinformation and disinformation from both sides, his simple mapping editing is very accurate enough for Russian soldiers unironically recording themselves watching his videos and Ukrainian soldiers are glad that he isn't spouting a dangerous amount of optimism (yes, the mainstream media is still insisting the war is in Ukraine's favor). His military knowledge is adequate for the coverage (like Deep Battle Doctrine and pre-Napoleonic battles). Of course, covering from both sides' perspective has gained a lot of flak from what you can consider as the Wheraboos of NATO (NAFO) and is often smeared as Russian propaganda despite having done videos covering Ukraine's strengths and perspective and has repeatedly revised history as the military situation changes.
Personally prefer Military & History when it comes to covering the Russo-Ukraine war. HistoryLegends is more bias than you may think criminally so sometimes. He's no pro russian mil blogger but sometimes I question his authenticity. I used to watch him but.. he ended up being overly sensational and I can not stomach his videos similar to say The Enforcer.
@@Alte.Kameraden HistoryLegends is biased towards the Ukrainians, but he is also objective enough to not overtly cloud his videos. And when the Russians win he will tell so in his style. But he most definitely wants the Ukraine to win. Overall there are lots of youtubers talking about the Ukraine war. And I reckon the more of them you follow the better informed you will be. Certainly a lot better then what you get from the media. It's bizarre how much open source close to real time information can be had about this war. Imagine having that in WW2, with Rommel's social media channel duking it out with Monty's social media channel with endless videos on who got to hammer the other the most.
Not even being allowed to dislike something is pure evil. It means that that thing will rule you no matter what, unopposed. That law is by itself already absolute tyranny and a violation of human dignity.
I’m not qualified to have a detailed discussion about the definition of fascism but it seems to me that mainstream liberal elite politicians have been so detached from the public on issues ranging from immigration, multiculturalism, gender bending, wars abroad, the death penalty, government corruption etc that it might be worth empowering an authoritarian leader who promises to clear out those who obstruct the peoples will on these issues. Liberalism has brought our societies to such a crisis in terms of maintaining any national coherence that anything other than further empowering the existing institutions might be worth a risk
Well, sounds like you actually have a sound mind. And i agree. That is precisely the utopia that Germany was headed for, and so the masters squashed it and painted it as evil. In truth though, it's the other way around.
You described cultural marxlsm to a T. All these "intellectuals" here, as hard as they try to make it sound like they understand everything, and how much they despise marxlzm, only succeed in proving their hypocritical ignorance by throwing derogatory comments toward 30s Germany and labelling it in the same vein as marxlsm. While hailing our current society as the "morally superior". It's an echo chamber of incompetence and contradictions.
European culture virtually doesn't exist. National pride and cohesiveness is a relic of the past. Flags mean nothing, borders mean nothing, even languages and culture mean nothing. Our women and young generations have no respect. We serve only to sacrifice our quality of life in order to improve it for those who despise us.
God damn man, more great stuff from you all the time. I love it and am so glad that I can chip in a bit of filthy lucre to be a small part of what you do. Andy.
Maybe it falls on his giant shoes and he's completely unharmed, and lives on to tell people it was funny. But that would only be secondhand funny, because you have to take the clown at his word. So no. No, it is not funny.
I haven’t visited your channel in some years but i am catching up a bit now and i can conclude you did in fact not stick to tanks haha, incredible how much content you have released on all these ideologies.
"Fascist" is used as a generic antiwhite slur for anyone who contradicts the antiwhite narrative or threatens to even slightly forestall white erasure. Most allied soldiers were "fascist" by their definition.
Saying Plato agrees with Protagoras is insane. A lot of Plato's dialogues have mocking relativism (and specifically Protagoras) as a main theme. Kant's idealism argued for the obiectivity of knowledge PRECISELY BECAUSE it's transcendental. There is no way kantian idealism undermines objectivity, the opposite is true. Both Plato and Kant believed in the universality of truth, even though both disregarded the senses.
I don't think that anyone at the top will call you out for attacking fascists and fascism because you attack their "religion". I don't think that a court will ever agree to that. Fascism is not a legal religious organisation, it has no mainstream definition of clerics, it has no divine creed. The mainstream doesn't understand (either truly or willingly) that a secular or atheist political ideology is a form of worship. Even apolitical atheism is a religion, because humanity has always psychologically needed to worship something or at least believe in something it can't fully know or understand. Both on an individual and group level.
I think you're doing really important work showing these ideas outside a classroom and making them available. Personally, I think the philosophy of empiracism vs idealism is all very much mistaken. It should be obvious to anyone that both are limited in scope in a way that makes the argument silly. The pen, is a pen because humans created a pen. Penness is the quality of being a pen, which we created to instruct others on what a pen should be. Along the way to Platonism a mistake was made- God does not decide the forms we see and understand. Along the way to Empiracism, a mistake was made- there is a collective understanding of the forms. The problem with either side is that neither of these are made by God, but entirely by men. When I speak "Pen" to you, you imagine "pEn", but we can agree on the nature of it and create "peN", "PEn" or perhaps "PENn". Because all of this is just a lot of talk about talk. All this is people talking themselves into confusion about the nature of things. Reality is not necessarily as we perceive it- but it also is. Penness and the Pen are both real, but are also created by subjective creatures, who cannot truly be objective. So the camps will argue forever.
I appreciate someone that actually engages with the topic. A lot of the comments feel like the New Atheists, scoffing at a strawman. I don't agree with the forms being the best way to do things, but the idea of "The more something partakes in the features of its category, the more of that thing it must be." Balls are round, thusly a rounder ball is participating more in the form of Ball, though since we're in reality, at some point the ball is no longer perfectly round as a conceptual, abstract ball in our heads.
It was a great explanation introduction video about Facism its route, its out look to ,materialism, idealism, related to other philosophical views ,and creations of Italian 🇮🇹 Facism .. it was valued work intellectually...thank you respectful 🙏 ( TIK) channel. Appreciating 🙏Waiting for other videos
Always a joy to get out brains and preconceptions bent and reduced to the fundaments by this brilliant thinker. And it's free. Thank you sir, always a pleasure to listen and learn.
Just a tip on quantum mechanics. What the double slit experiment/Schrogdiner's cat proves is that we are unable to KNOW the true, natural unaltered state of a particle, not that the universe is shaped according to an observer. Plus, one must be careful with the word 'observer' here, observer might also mean 'whatever it is interacting with the particle'. Pluuuus? What do you need to watch something? Light, and when you throw 'light' at an particle that you suspect to be in a region of space, you are...INTERACTING WITH IT, thus changing its trajectory or energy level. There is nothing about 'mind changing stuff' or 'universes splitting in half' or 'world being what we think it is'. Those stupid theories only exist because of those insane unscientific bullshit about 'mind shaping reality' oozing in physics.
Thank you for the whole video, but thank you as well for your explanation of some of the foundational Greek Philosophy. I've read a lot of it before. I've even taught some of it. But this is the first time I've heard it described in a non-abstract manner where I could get my head all the way around it.
Hey, so, I have an issue with your source being Leonard Peikoff. The issue is that Peikoff is an Objectivist, and his historiography of philosophy has issues with it mostly because it is derived from Ayn Rand's. I'm not a shitlib, I love reading Ayn Rand and her philosophy, but her thoughts on other philosophers is highly problematic and deranged at points (Her hated for Kant is incomprehensible). This doesn't debunk your main thesis of Fascism btw, but you are getting into the realm of philosophy from history, and things get complicated here.
This is so great. As you go on this journey I'd be interested to see if you can pick up on the Volkishness introduced by Fichte and Herder and carried on some by Hegel but also Heidegger and Schmitt. This seems an important component to create Dialectical Conflict towards the Absolute Ideal.
The updated timeline used in the video is here and in the description too drive.google.com/file/d/1IJkAYcN9w0G9Hy5V6PacYLb4hMlHitCW/view?usp=drive_link
There's a lot more I need to add to it, so expect periodic updates! If you didn't see the original timeline video, it's here th-cam.com/video/v7_J_daQkSU/w-d-xo.html
It’s a work of art. Keep it up.
It should be noted that Plato didnt "say" anything. If one were to dig into his letters one may get closer to justifying that claim. [but] He wrote in dialogues. Nothing like "Thus i sayeth". One may wonder why he did that... [Nonetheless]
U get Idealism right. And i love that.
Still: much work yet ahead of thee, [us] friend.
there's No such thing" as nothing" meanwhile -is an excellent song to play in the b/g. Cornell, not Mayer.
[Rocks DO write excellent essays]
Anyhow:
Small critique TIK but I think you should swap Hume and Burke around: Hume wrote his big work "A Treatise of Human Nature" in 1740, Burke wrote his earliest work "A vindication of natural society" in 1756. That, and Hume was born in 1711, Burke was born in 1729.
You should absolutely do a collab with Metatron 😊
It looks like, where Fascism went wrong, was that since in the case of Italy, being a recently created nation of small peninsular states, it was still in a period of expansion, the colonial era was still in effect, and in remembering the Italian nations history, it wanted to revive the Roman Empire. So while it was populist, it was so within the imperialist mindset. Italian Fascism became associated with the Ethiopian invasion and later it's allegiance with Germany In Spain, Fascism is associated with the militarism of the Spanish civil war against the Communist Left, and in Portugal with the Portuguese colonial empire. So when Leftists see small c conservative Populism on the rise in 2024, they make the association with the war years of the 1st half of the 20th century and assume they stand for the same thing. They don't realize that there have been other Populist movements that were not involved with military expansion or civil war. In Canada we had Populist Provincial governments that were voted into office for decades on end and they neve had violent tendencies.
Hitler stated in a 1928 interview, "We might have called ourselves the Liberty Party. We chose to call ourselves National Socialists. We are not Internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just demands of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
So racial colectivism
@@kwestionariusz1Sounds familiar, like a certain modern group of people that injects race into absolutely everything.
Still collectivists using Marxist vocabulary.
@@kwestionariusz1 Yes, or as I described it "racial socialism". Of course, the Marxist Socialists and similar were not happy with that, but the truth hurts when your ideology detaches you from reality.
@@kwestionariusz1 Viewing the world with only two concepts is very reductionist not everything is either collectivism vs individualism.
Being treated like a grown-up who can deal with complex and sensitive topics feels good. Thanks mate.
That comes when you are thinking like a child. An adult would immediately realize the nonsense in this video
@@anjecheisenberg5060Go on then - explain. You could even upload a response to TH-cam.
@@anjecheisenberg5060because denying things without understanding them is mature, and spending the time/effort to have a nuanced opinion is immature. Makes perfect sense!
Only children listen to all sides of a debate. Everyone knows that.
@@anjecheisenberg5060 "the nonsense"
You’re pushing the conversation and actual understanding of these topics farther than most public officials and academics have for years.
Further than they can fathom.
Lol
Yes, pushing them into total fantasy and ideological lunacy.
ThikHistory is beyond clueless.
@@DavidBusiness-wb2jo
Yep
The public officials and academics don't have any interest in an anatomy lesson regarding fascism. That is the problem.
The ancient Hindu religion also believed the world was entirely made of thought. There is an old story about a king who knew a Hindu philosopher who claimed everything in the world was just thoughts in the mind. To test this theory, the king sent an elephant charging straight at the philosopher who, when he saw it coning ran like hell. The king then said to him, " you said everything is just thoughts, and yet I just saw you running away from that elephant." The philosopher replied, " You THOUGHT you saw me running from the elephant."
A bit like the old story of Samuel Johnson and Berkeley lol
Yes this come to us through pythagoras.Idealism is hindu philosophy and use of symbols for magic mainly come from babylon.Pythagoras traveled to babylon and india for knowlegde and came back with this ideas in western world
This sounds like the "perception is reality" trap that leftists fall into. Yes, your individual reality is entirely 'perception'. But that perception is still a cause and affect relationship dictated by the laws of physics. I've met some "really smart people" who couldn't work their way out of this trap. These are the very same people who instantly changed from thinking Im a normal smart guy, to a devil because I 'support' Trump.
We have negative and positive thoughts but our thoughts are influenced by our upbringing and journey of Life.
@@Klee99zeno
Tik is dumb. If he doesn't want people to be fascist why associate it with people's religious beliefs? 🙄 moron. Imagine going through all these hoops just to say you don't like big government.
Flawless pronunciation of "pen-ness" every time. Well done, sir.
You definitely need to clearly pronounce both Ns.
@@bartsanders1553especially when lamenting that one cannot touch pen-ness
The pen-ness in my trousers does not actually exist.
Someone should create a YTP of that lmao
He really drives home the pen-ness example
Just been on Metatrons channel and had to vent in the chat when idiots start on about TIK being a Yasi sympathiser and apologist. Damn TIK you must be hitting home with some of these fools when they have to blatantly lie about your brilliant content! Keep up the good work mate.
Ah yes the Metatron and Tik gang. Avengers assem...
I wonder why he would never reacts to TIK 🤔
Maybe we can get a crossover one day.
@@ciupenhauer Metatron is a wanker
I've seen tik called a communist because it's obvious he's anti Nazi. Nuanced discussions are beyond ideologues. .
This will be an excellent series. Looking foward to it
You left out the part where the UK says, except Christians. Seems to me it's fine to hate on Christians there, since they are arrested for silent prayer.
What are you going on about?
Like (white) men they are exempt because they are perceived by the Left as to have power. Racism, sexism and other isms flow from power. Those who have it against those who haven't to oppress it. Therefore women can't be sexist towards men, because they have no power, people of color cannot be racist because they have no power and other belief system can't be prejudiced against Christianity, because they have no power. As TIK once said, marxist may share your language, but they don't share your dictionary. Their accusations and statements NEVER mean what people think they do.
@@colincampbell4261 There was a woman in Birmingham who was arrested by the police for silently praying outside an abortion clinic. Look it up.
@@emceedoctorb3022 That's bizarre. But not surprising.
He knows nothing about Christianity. He should read some Josephus (a Jew), and about every atheist I have heard are more educated on the topic. I am not implying his only sources should be Christian. He said Christains believe in an subjective reality, which is crazy. Idk how I am supposed to even listen to his trash anymore if he's going to twist things. He never has a source for his claims about Christainity either.
There’s a lot of hard work behind this explanation. Probably, one of the most clear presentation of what “Fascism” was, in its own Philosophical structure. All explained in a very easy way. Moreover, the difference with Nazism, the consequent “fusion” in Nazifascim. Nice Job TikH!
I'm totally excited about this series! Ever since I read "The Doctrine of Fascism", I realized how we have been massively mislead about what fascism actually is. This series is so important!
I agree with you. And we're mislead right from school. We were just taught a line with Communism on the far left and Fascism and NZism on the far right. Though we did have one teacher who bent that line into a circle and explained how alike they were. He was onto something. This was around 1980.
“Facism is just about have a fun time with your bros” musselini 2019
A. James Gregor was my professor at Berkeley. He wrote my recommendation letter for law school. He had such utter disdain for leftist students. One day, at the start of class, he said that several students had gone to the administration to complain about him. He said, "I have tenure. What are they going to do? Take away my parking space?" It was funny. On a serious note though, he was a great professor.
"Let's criminalize a rival political party to protect democracy!!"
Do they not see the problem here?
If a party is against the Constitution then of course it must be criminalised
@@angadsingh9314 Why? It takes a lot of effort to change a constitution. Usually a 2/3rds or 3/4 majority. No party EVER gets such a supermajority. As long as they adhere to the basic rules of political parties why should any party be criminalized for having an abhorrent opinion? You don't have democracy or freedom of speech if new parties that threaten the established ones can be 'verboten' on a technicality. Also, by that logic the US Democrats should be forbidden, as quite a few Democrats, like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have said things that are hostile to the constitution. The 1st and 2nd amendments in particular.
@angadsingh9314 So, all the authors of the Anti-Federalist Papers should have been rounded up?
There's a long distance between saying that the Constitution was poorly written, and taking up arms.
@@jeffreyscott4997 No... because they're just essays, they're just words. An anti-democratic political party on the other hand is more than just words
I had a whole lengthy post posted, but all that is left to me is that I strongly condemn YT censorship!
No minecraft player ever thought that because when you load the chunks in the world they are loaded for everyone on the server, that the players should thus create an all encompassing collective state in that world.
Give them time. Give them time. If Minecraft isn't already a religion or economic or political philosophy that some nut somewhere might think is worth deleting people over, someone will think of a way to turn it into one in a few years, I guarantee it....
Funnily enough multiplayer servers tend to operate with the explicit notion of private property that can not be interfered with by other players.
Um... I'm not suspectable to Fascism. I am a Christian
This video did a decent job of explaining one of the great errors in philosophy: the tribalistic camps that have arisen around exclusive ideas. For example, we all have a sense of fairness or justice, but we also understand that fairness or justice is also a matter of practical application. The ideal (idea) of justice or fairness exists in us all, but the application of it varies in practice. The attempt to sever the mindscape from the practical has caused many serious problems in philosophy. The truth is that both of these things necessarily exist.
The greatest baggage from the weird philosophical gobbledygook drawing battle-lines around and through these concepts would be that it completely ignores the fact that perfectly reasonable people can look at something like Justice, and say "well, IDEALLY things would be like that, but this is not an ideal world, and in a PRACTICAL world we would have to admit that sometimes, or most of the time, things are actually very different, or even completely the opposite of the ideal, mostly because human nature runs counter to this ideal...."
The usual story of what happens to most lottery winners, for example, highlights the vast gulfs between the ideal world, where a Marxist might believe that giving everyone the same ration of wealth would make everyone equally wealthy, and the practical world, where in fact you could give millions of dollars to the average lottery winner, and in a few years they'll be as poor as they ever were before, and miserable, with a long trail of wreckage behind them, because there's a practical difference between wealth that is obtained easily and wealth that is earned and worked for, and a practical difference between the skills needed to determine what is really valuable and make the most of that value to invest wisely and maintain and build on wealth instead of throw money around on temporary fun and costly status symbols, and a practical difference in the friends that a self-made wealthy person learns how to cultivate and look to for advice and guidance, versus the "friends" who can be counted on to flock to lottery winners looking to mooch on hand-outs, and so on.
A great deal of it comes down to a failure of many of these philosophers to make any use of cynicism to temper their idealism: even well-meaning people are corrupt and foolish, they have their bad days, they aren't often very smart even when (or especially when) they are well-educated, sometimes people are downright evil and can use pleasant-sounding ideals to disguise ulterior motives, or find ways to use nice-sounding ideals to further their own worst natures, and so on. A lot of philosophers who were, no doubt, convinced of the best intentions of their own ideals have found that implementing their ideals in the real world brings out the worst in their followers, and themselves, assuming they have the insight and grasp on the reality of what they are doing to realize it.
And I find that too many of them even refuse to entertain any question of their ideals, under the conviction that practical or cynical concerns over their ideals are direct threats from a dirty material world to the theoretical purity of their idealism: as long as their ideals can float untouched and unquestioned and unsullied in the purity of a theoretical realm, the aims toward those ideals can be carried out in the material world toward a corresponding material perfection against the resistance of evil anti-philosophers, or something..... As if the material world is actually a reflection of their ideal world, where their ideals make reality, as long as there is nobody else there to contradict them, a problem that could ideally be solved by eliminating people who disagree from reality until the only people who remain are those who can preserve the purity of the ideal.... People don't work that way in the real world, not even the philosophers are free from the "errors" that make the ideals impractical and impossible!
The idealists, in other words, do not understand or live in the practical world -and honestly, they don't seem to live in or understand the "material" world, either, being so lost looking at their favorite idealist trees, that they cannot really see very far into their own philosophical forests.....
Looking around us, it seems clear to me that we need fewer idealists, dreamers, and philosophers, and more cynics, pessimists, and practical people. Especially in light of the number of people who have been senselessly butchered in the name of idealistic dreams and impractical philosophies and ideologies over the last hundred years alone!
@@pietrayday9915 Exactly so. This stresses the importance of things like decentralized political power and economic models. The academic idealist is hubristic in his ideals and ideologies, and such arrogance leads to power and economic centralization which encourages abuse, exploitation, and is a wonderful way to spread bad ideas universally. By decentralizing political authority and economic action, we reduce the risk of abuse and fraud, among other undesirable effects.
This is why iam a substantial dualist.Both mind and Matter exsist.The apple is there it exsist but our mind due to past experiences regocnizes certain qualities that are found in a bunch of fruits and therefore call them apples despite them being red,green spherical shape or trapesian.We have pattern regocnition abilities.
"Everything within the State. Nothing outside the State."
Fascists argued that socialism "doesn't go far enough."
Considering that the total number of DELETIONS by the Italian fascist security forces against its own citizens equal in the few thousands, that's basically a tuesday to Stalin or Mao. I'd say that socialism DID went far enough.
Ant-ness. You own nothing and will be happy.
So communism?
Technically they argued the Italian Socialist Party didn't go far enough.
"Although we can discuss the question of what socialism is, what is its program and what are its tactics, one thing is obvious: the official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative." Mussolini
This can be a real shock the first time you hear, but understand it.
I graduated in Philosophy and Theology, and I look back at it often and just facepalm and think that I did not learn anything of practical value.
That's not to say that knowing philosophical history has no value (it has value like learning history in general), just that I sense that I learned more about people's rambling thoughts than anything useful.
Today, what I respect is the labourer. By that I don't mean in a Communist sense - I simply mean, anyone who produces or creates something. The act of creation influences reality. Building a building, putting up a podcast, writing code, painting art, managing a business - while philosophy and thought go into these things for sure, my essential thought is that the bulwark and foundation of society matters more than wondering what reality "is."
The true philosophers are those who do something.
And those who think they are philosophers only create unliveable Utopia.
Creating thoughts can also be highly valuable, (if they are valuable thoughts). Value is always subjective, at least in the way im defining it. So something more often than not has highly different value to different people. A woodmaker would offer way more for the same wood than a plumber. So your thoughts have different value to different people aswell. Thoughts can often be solutions to problems. And the world is full of problems. You don't need to implement the solution to be of value. Enabling it and giving people the right methods also can bring tremendous value. And that is in one part, basically what a consultant does. He helps solve problems, often only conceptually. But there is a very important point: the illusion of knowledge. Tons of people think they know how to solve something or have their theories, but actually they know jack all. Actual solutions are a completly different thing than theories, and therefore one has to use reality as ones master.
Evil materialist
Rand would disagree. You need philosophy in order to produce, even if you only hold a philosophy implicitly. For example, you need to know if reality exists or how causality works in order to grow crops or hunt animals for food.
@@RyanRothwell
So Ants use philosophy ?
This explains why you won't find the word democracy in the U.S. constitution.
YES. To be fair, though, even the republican/libertarian experiment of the US Constitution was a product of the same revolutionary trail of "liberal" philosophy that produced Fascism, Marxism, and so many of the other "-isms" of the last couple hundred years.
The distinguishing characteristic, I would argue, is in the relative skepticism and cynicism of the American Republic, compared to the utopian ideals of competing philosophies:
The US Constitution is deliberately written as a maze of interlocking and contradictory checks--and-balances, not because its architects thought it would make for a more efficient and elegant form of perfection for a utopian government led by well-meaning philosopher-kings over a wise and benevolent people... rather, it's designed to hamper and hamstring its own government to the greatest extent possible, in the name of preventing the inevitable cast of corrupt scoundrels and monsters that would try to seize control of it from doing as much damage as possible.
The Framers of the Constitution were under none of the illusions that most revolutionaries seem to be bound by, that there is some idealized liberal State on material Earth just waiting for the right idealistic philosophy to be conjured into the sphere of imagination, to lead them towards a utopian world if only they could be freed from the deceptions and limits of some mystical "demiurge" and its Capitalist agents on Earth.
Rather, they worked with the understanding that the Republic they were crafting depended on the wisdom and self-restraint of an educated and moral people to keep it on track, but would persist under a built-in time-limit of the inherent imperfection and corruption and laziness and ignorance of man - "A Republic, IF you can keep it!"
Too many competing philosophies assume some inherent goodness in man, which can be freed to maintain a "perfect" philosophical construct forever and ever, if only they can be freed to do so through the pure benevolence of the State, perhaps once a class, race, or whatever of unbelievers with competing philosophies has successfully been purged from the earth.....
That includes "Our Democracy". One can't help noting with a sinking feeling of dread that "Our Democracy" is assumed to be benevolent and trustworthy to hold absolute power, and cannot withstand the criticism, cynicism, doubt, and pessimism that we could level against the Republic from the day it was founded, up to a few years ago, or even now, while "Our Democracy" races to blot it from American history and replace it with something alien and ominous and un-American.....
The Republic worked as long as we all agreed that it was imperfect and best treated with delicacy and suspicion, and restrained from power. "Our Democracy" cannot withstand any doubt or question - every criticism or restraint on its grasp for total power is a "Threat to Our Democracy", and the only imperfection it will admit is that it has not yet successfully purged itself of all dissent and doubt and "fash" restraint on its power in the name of establishing by force a utopia on Earth unbound by "what has been".... I don't trust any government, but I especially distrust any government that cannot be criticized, or which demands absolute power over me, or which insists on its own pure and infallible benevolence in the name of a Utopia that can be achieved if only enough people either shut up, get in line, and follow orders, or just fall as conveniently as possible into a grave on the "wrong side of history".....
@@pietrayday9915And both Adams and Jefferson knew this! That is both, from opposite ends of their contemporary political spectrum, came to the conclusion that a "New Revolution" would be necessary every 5-7 generations. (Andrew Jackson should have been the first of these, but the moment was "passed on," a bad habit of American politics even [Especially] today)
@@pietrayday9915 "To be fair, though, even the republican/libertarian experiment of the US Constitution was a product of the same revolutionary trail of "liberal" philosophy that produced Fascism, Marxism, and so many of the other "-isms" of the last couple hundred years." The US as conceived and in its first 30 years of existence was the closest humanity has come to the true sovereignty of the individual. We've lost that, particularly as a result of the Civil War, but for a brief time it was there. Now the US is basically just a federal republic where sovereignty is reserved to the top of the pyramid and occasionally licensed out to favored groups and classes.
Democracy is just anti-Christianity (Anti-Conservatism/Anti-Republic) .... Let every individual be his own monarch
@@pietrayday9915 fantastically put
Thanks for the work you put into these TIK.
Awesome as always
This is really interesting!! You did a great job explaining all this!
I think what Gentile meant by the world being created by the mind was that it is human action based on ideas, rather than material conditions controlling everything as in Marxism, which dictates its ultimate course in a societal sense.
That's fundamentally a platonic idea.
Even if that is so, as is almost always the case, what a philosopher MEANT is perhaps far less important than what his most active and fanatical followers HEARD, or imagined, or wanted to believe....
th-cam.com/video/NFPIGNua5WM/w-d-xo.html
@polybian_bicycle
It's a common sense idea. Why do people take this shit so seriously? Obviously, ideas drive history, dummy.
@polybian_bicycle
It's a common sense idea. Why do people take this stuff so seriously? Obviously, ideas drive history
@@KEK-dd4iu I think it's people, not ideas, that do things. They live(d) their lives, as I live mine.
And history is just the stuff that happened before. Nothing needs to 'drive' it for things to happen or to have happened.
I'm loving those videos about philosophy and ideologies. Looking forward to the next one.
29:44 Small correction (kinda). "Looking" can mislead the viewer. Looking at something like a subatomic particle isn't like looking at a screen. You need to use incredibly powerful technology which will interact with the particle. The change in behaviour comes from the interaction between the instruments and the particle.
@Bean-boi I'm afraid you are mistaken. Firstly, the human eye can perceive a single photon so you can in fact sense a solitary quantum event. Yes, to generate some kinds of sub-atomic particles you do need massively powerful particle accelerators like the LHC for creating a Higgs boson, but many other quantum phenomena don't require that at all. Early quantum experiments involved hiring mostly young women to sit in absolute darkness watching scintillation screens for flashes of light from single particles striking the phosphorous. By the way, it is absolutely the case that quantum mechanics cannot describe the process of a measurement and in fact there is not a complete theory that encapsulates the statistics of quantum mechanics and a precise mathematical description of a measurement. Scarily enough measurement in quantum mechanical theory flirts dangerously with idealism in that it is the "observer" who collapses the wave function. Schroedinger's cat is actually a critique of this problem.
@@andrewdelaix You'd kidding right? Are you seriously saying that being in the vicinity of an electron being fired is the equivalent of observing it? That's just not what observation is.
@@Bean-boi An electron interacts with its environment very often, as it interacts with all the electromagnetic fields around it. And gravity as well. Photons do neither of that, so it is easy to observe strange quantum effects with them.
In physics, an observation is a measurement of any kind, and is not possible without interaction.
@@Bean-boi An electron hitting a phosphorescent screen generating some photons a few of which hit your eye: all quantum until it hits your eye. I'm saying that the vagaries of quantum mechanics leak right up into your physical senses and that you are in fact a quantum detector.
@@andrewdelaix Yes... we can see...
Thank you for bringing all of this to light, Mr. TIK.
Imma have to watch this a dozen times to make it stick.
It's not an easy one, but I hope I've explained it well
@@TheImperatorKnight You did, but I'm old and plagued with mental health issues aplenty. I'm bad with remembering details like these, so it needs repetition.
@@TheImperatorKnight yes, you did, he's just flaunting the fact he is five times cleverer than me - ahh well, on to watch number seventy...
If you are new or just not an expert of philosophy then the book The Quest for a Moral Compass by Kenan Malik is excellent, really helps to frame everything, well, lots...
I watched it once and then dematerialised.
Socialism is a religion
unlike the trickle down economics of capitalism course.
@AFGuidesHD trickle-down economics is when the government takes your money and redistributes (trickles it down) it to the lower classes.
Yeah, there's no such thing as "trickle down economics" th-cam.com/video/nZPDpk8NA-g/w-d-xo.htmlsi=KNG44PJUyZ-HmN--
All political ideologies are basically Christian heresies, really.
@@TheImperatorKnight Yes!!! Thank you.
The best and possibly one of the most important videos of our lifetime to watch. Thank you Tik, your research into what fascism actually is going to make a difference. BTW I think it would be a good idea to do a bite sized book version of this video as they would be handy to give out to people if they ever wanted to have useful information on the key points on this 20th century religion.
This is not easy , but very interesting !
Yes, for people who are not immersed in philosophy, it can be very difficult, which is why I spoke slowly and went through it the way I did in the hopes that people would be able to grasp it. Of course, someone has criticsed me saying "you could have said it all in 10 minutes", but my goal is to reach the widest audience as possible, so I had to spend the time to make sure it was all clear.
@@TheImperatorKnight So what am i then Tik? - i dont vote and i dont believe in democracy per say .....because for over all my lifetime i can see fascism at work within our representational democracy/judicial systems, parliament etc in the uk.
All im interested in is making sure that our governments , from one government to another , are to be examined with a fine tooth comb under fact and law .....and to made equal under the law with everyday citizens i.e access to one law , one rule , and a shit load of us to make sure that stays universal and equal...no matter if that can create inequality along the way. Law education in schools etc
what does that make me?
@@rockface901 Do you require a label?
@@TheImperatorKnight I for one appreciate that considering I am one of those people who frankly hasn't invested much time in philosophy. So thank you.
@@PerfectTangent lol, well know ..haaa, i just keep hearing about all these "isms" - they are doing my head in.
I have been thinking for a long while that fascism is strongly democratic and the logical conclusion of certain types of demacracy. I guess this will further my reasons to think so. Thanks as always TIK
Fascism = Real Democracy = Freedom.
So if the majority can take my stuff I'm free ? Direct Taxation = Freedom ?
Yeah. As soon as it's accepted that what a majority or plurality of people think somehow determines right and wrong, you're pretty much doomed to land in the realm of fascism. And manufactured consent is left completely unaccounted for.
@@SepticFuddy I mean, democracy can come in more ways than a majority of people who impose things to others, not only it can come from a minority too but its usually the politician in question who is actually the one in control. People cant see these traits are inherent in one way or another in both democracy and fascism, they swallowed the propaganda that lies clearly about democracy, dont really know what fascism is about and dont see the same traits between the 2. They actually suport both without really knowing. People cant conceive democracy as someone that isnt good (as if the way that something is chosen or imposed said if it is good or bad) therefore these things happen and deny certain things to be democratic
Fascinating, genuinely. Thank you. I look forward to more.
Christianity is considered objective in the sense that we believe in a reality that exists independently of human thoughts or perceptions. According to Christian teachings, God created a real, physical world, and moral truths are grounded in God's nature, making them universally valid and unchanging, regardless of personal beliefs or cultural differences. This belief in a fixed, external reality and absolute moral truth makes Christianity fundamentally objective.
Christianity doesn't fit with the idea that reality is just a mental or spiritual construct.
I don't understand why TIK says Christians believe in subjective reality and idealism. It seems like he's mixing up Christianity and Gnosticism, which are not the same.
One point of confusion is that there are several different forms of Christianity. Firstly, there are those in the Augustine/Aquinas tradition, which believes in an objective physical world which we can understand beginning with our senses, but with reason and representation building on (and corrected by) what we perceive. Dominician Roman Catholics are probably the most faithful to this tradition, but many (orthodox) Protestants (excluding those which don't tend to focus on philosophy) would also belong to it; while Eastern Orthodox tend to be more neo-Platonists (I do think that one weakness of this video is that it mischarterises the neo-Platonists, who were not the forerunners of idealism to the extent that is implied). The Dominician tradition is probably closer to TIK's own objectivism than most of the rest of the chart (although obviously still differs from it in important respects, such as being theistic rather than atheistic). But on the other hand, you have liberal Protestants and liberal "Catholics" who are very much influenced by Hegel and the traditions that followed from Hegel (and are closer to gnosticism than Christianity). Hegel certainly thought he was rescuing God and what he could of Christianity from the materialists, who he could see were heading towards atheism. But he did it in a way that completely contradicts and undermines apostolic Christianity. Nonetheless, many did follow his lead (or at least were influenced by him to a greater or lesser extent) and still call themselves Christian. This might be the source of TIK's (and Peikoff's) confusion.
I also think the video mischaracterises Hume, and the position he attributes to Hume is closer to that of Hobbes. Hume believed that sense impressions form ideas in our minds, which are distinct from the real objects, and any thinking we do (such as attributing certain things as causes and others as effect) is thinking about those ideas, and thus has nothing to do with the real world. Thus talk about cause, effect, secondary qualities, morality, etc. are all fictions, because (according to Hume) they only exist in our minds. The only reliable things are the directly perceived ideas, and abstract proofs in geometry (which are disconnected from the real world). Kant was greatly impressed by Newton's physics, but then also read Hume, and then realised that Hume's thought completely undermined Newton's theories (which would reside in the world of ideas in Hume's thought). So he pulled the trick of saying that they might only exist in the mind, but that doesn't make them any less real than things in the physical world. Thus Newton's laws, God, and so on, could reside in the world of our ideas and have just as much claim to existence as anything in the phenomenological world. This is entirely the wrong answer to the problem, and obviously after Kant things only got worse. Hume is certainly in the empiricist tradition, but he did not deny the human mind or the existence of ideas in the mind as forming our awareness of reality and, as such lies a step between the Materialist Empiricist tradition and Kant.
I would also dispute that modern science is Empiricist. It is Empirical, which states that we can make a partial representation of reality, and our thoughts on that representation and theories built on it do tell us something (or a great deal) about reality, but with all of this reasoning carefully constrained and then tested by observation and experiment. The empiricists have observation and experiment, but forbid us from constructing theoretical representations and models on top of this; it denies the usefulness of theoretical science (or certainly do so once we get to Hume).
I still think that Ockham and Rosseau ought to be mentioned in any discussion of the origins of the various forms of socialism. Ockham was the father of nominalism (the denial of formal and final causes), and represents the break from the logical and realist (in the sense of accepting universals, albeit in Aristotle's conception subsisting in particular beings rather than some third realm) tradition of Aquinas and the very top of TIK's chart and the modern forms of empiricism and idealism. And the influence of Rosseau, with his belief in fundamental human goodness marred only by individualism, and of a social contract derived from the general will of society, on the development of socialism should be obvious.
Well spotted and articulated observation.
@@nigelcundy4685basically Tic needs to put on his dunce cap and read his Aristotle.
Christianity shares its belief in the independent existence of reality with Judaism.
"we believe in a reality that exists independently of human thoughts or perceptions."
That's idealism and subjective reality. "You believe" is subjective. "Independent of perception" is idealism.
Moreover, Christians also believe in a community in spirit, subject to the head consciousness Jesus. So in that sense they are Jesus and the community is in his image.
So it's pretty much the same thing as Fascism the way he describes it. Just replace Jesus by Mussolini and you have pretty much the same thing.
If you can't see it, just look at Trump and his followers. It's not a fluke that they would worship some guy just because he brandishes a Bible and would allow him to do anything. It's baked into the religion to do that. In fact it IS the religion.
He's wrong about the word though, Fas is the divine law as opposed to ius which is human law.
i'm so annoyed not being taught philosophy back in school we should have. Ayn Rand was right when she said that adults are failing kids by not educating us on how to think. The pillars of philosophy are so important. And I got taught I even had a mandatory RE class religion. nobody liked it as very little in the secular school were even religious also I looked up this is mandatory by law.
Ideally, philosophy should be taught to students by almost ANYONE but an actual philosopher. Fortunately for us, I don't think TIKHistory is a philosopher - his skepticism about all the sacred cows of philosophy is a nice breath of fresh air, and does more to clear up the mass of confusion on the subject than any true believer I've ever heard from!
@@pietrayday9915 Yea I get you well as Ayn pointed out it was happening back in 60's I would even say that's when the culture war started. If you read her essays you can see the origins of woke. Something important to learn today. But even without objectivism, they could teach the fundamentals and Aristotle. At least youtube kids will likely find out. But I would rather every kid knew how to rational think. We deffo need it. Sophists are something to fear especially amoral ones. They don't believe in reality and just use rhetoric for arguments appealing to in modern day they appeal to emotion instead of man's reason. It's so easy to appeal to emotion rather than rationalize the ideas you have. Our society will die too these people. If you live in a democracy you are wide open to these people. Remember it was 30 tyrants the oligarchy that took over democracy in Athens. That had more protections than ours. It's what I think is going on with Starmer. He has no morals and changes what he says every time depending on the crowd.
@@pietrayday9915 democrats too I would say are amoral sophists Harris saying nothing and not caring, she just rambles on about nothing important dodging questions. People need to know in order to combat this. And understand what she is doing.
There is no such thing as a "secular" school. All men are religious.
@@pietrayday9915 I would have thought this was all conspiracy theory but sadly it's the truth. nobles had time for these cults. And all our big names were into this stuff. Isaac newton and others. It's such a jump to what I thought the world was. In modern times It used to confuse me that older people tended to go along with the woke crowd. Well I found out that berkley had the free speech movement. That did the exact same thing as 2016 protests that took over unis and took staff hostage. Guess what demands were the exact same safe space both times for students. These people were taught by those people. Which has led to a generation failure with knock on effect. it was not for free speech the name was to get even conservatives on board. As I say they just use rhetoric and simply don't care about reality.
Thanks, great video TIK.
Just wanna say thanks for everything you do, Tik. You’re one of the real ones and it’s a huge breath of fresh air.
In the face of the scientific method how these beliefs persist is amazin
You spent more time thinking about Fascism by watching this video than your average self-proclaimed Fascist has or ever will in his/her entire existence. The aren't Fascist because they are intruiged by the metaphysical concept of pen-ness, they just want to get drunk, belt slogans they don't understand, derive their self-worth from a past that never was and dogpile people slightly different from themselves.
Well, to be fair, the very Scientific Method itself is a product of the same train of philosophical thought that spawned these other beliefs - I believe TIK even mentions that in this video, that the Scientific Method was developed to deal with questions of what is real from the material side of a material/ideal two-sided equation, while all sorts of philosophical weirdness sprang up from the ideal side of the same equation.
It's counter-intuitive and weird, perhaps, but perhaps also inevitable, given the nature of philosophy, that something that somehow produced a tool as useful, practical, and valuable as the Scientific Method, can also find a thousand ways to follow its own moments of crazy down the rabbit-holes of idealistic madness to their inevitable conclusions.
Aristotle tried to warn us
The scientific method is a tool for understanding physical reality only. That's why.
The scientific method does the same, it's also based on Plato and idealism.
People are supposed to check empirically, but nobody does.
What's amazing is that people believe in it, that's the real issue.
The consciousness of the scientists creates reality.
And altogether, they form a community of scientists, Science itself.
"I think, therefore I am" - Descartes
"I am, therefore I think" J.P, Sartre, Stephen Hawking
"I am, therefore I am" - Popeye, Stone Cold Steve Austin
"I think, therefore I think" - Hegel - (Pure thought thinking about pure thought - characterization by Bertrand Russell)
Bishop Berkeley might have changed his mind if Samuel Johnson had connected with a right hook to his nose instead of merely kicking a rock .....
2024 you can be replaced ai
@@BuleriaChk Have you read Rothbards essay titled The Hermeneutical Invasion?
"At first, I thought that these German hermeneuticians were simply ill-served by their translators into English. But my German friends assure me that Heidegger, Gadamer, et al. are equally unintelligible in the original. Indeed, in a recently translated essay, Eric Voegelin, a philosopher not normally given to scintillating wit, was moved to ridicule Heidegger’s language. Referring to Heidegger’s master work, Sein und Zeit (Being and Time), Voegelin refers to the meaningless but insistent repetition of a veritable philosophical dictionary of phrases as the Anwesen des Answesenden (”the presence of that which is present”), the Dingen des Dings (”the thinging of the thing”), the Nichten des Nichts (”the nothinging of the nothing”), and finally to the zeigenden Zeichen des Zeigzeugs (”the Pointing sign of the pointing implement”), all of which is designed, says Voegelin, to whip up the reader “into a reality-withdrawing state of linguistic delirium.”3" Murray N Rothbard
(Hope this is not a dup; clicked CANCEL by mistake, apparently.)
"And would monsieur like some dessert?" the waiter asked. "Ahh," replied Descartes, patting his belly, "I think not." And *poof*, he disappeared, not even leaving a tip. The waiter sighed. Would he never learn?
I see Schrödinger’s cat in my mind’s eye.
Seems like we are coming to a confluence of dead ends in philosophy, epistemology and, perhaps, physics.
Me: *A serious student of both history and philosophy. Constantly trying to learn more about both, and fascinated by how they interact.*
Also me: *Snickering uncontrollably every time TiK says "pen-ness"*
"We all have pen ness in our minds" 🤨🤨🤨
@@queuedjar4578 Some of us have a small pen-ness. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
@@82dorrin
As long as the wife is happy with it.
I have the perfect pen-ness form.
My pen-ness is average-sized.
dude.. the painter was right no need for pseudophilosophy
God, philosophers are a weird bunch. It feels like they should be best left in a pub and never be listened too ever again.
you will always be duped and fall prey to propaganda if you're not familiar with at least basic philosophy
We get it, you are not intellectually capable of understanding complex thought that goes against your world view.
@@vladimirkraynyk True. Still, its almost like every philosopher is an anti-common sense nutter.
@@ChaptermasterPedroKantor-kv5yw There are certain insights which cannot be conveyed with words. They transform your perspective entirely and afterward the most seemingly outlandish ideas begin to make perfect sense. Its more about experience then words.
They sound like a bunch of nerds, probably wouldn't even set foot in one.
My lord, first Metatron releases a video on Fascism like a day or two ago and now TIK. I'm a happy person now.
Nice lalafell
@@endo4137 Fun to roleplay as the Lalafell version of a Social Revolutionary.
"I fight for the glorious Lalafellian Revolution against the Tall Oppressors. Too long has the Talls thrived off Lalafellian Labor, eating our crops greater than their share. Meanwhile our Lalafellian Farmers and Miners toil in hardship. No more! We shall strike down the talls and take our rightful place at the top of society as the rightful ruling class over all of Eorzea."
Can literally picture a Bun giving a head pat shortly after making me go "Quit it! Take me seriously!" lol
There's a reason that back when i took a psychology class back in school the first thing our teacher told us was "Psychology is a kind of philosophy, not a science,"
He still got a little irritated when I called Sigmund Freud "Freaky Freud". Fun times.
Thank you for a very interesting video.
Again, Thank You! It is such a tangled web. Cleary Explaining these mind sets, in layman's terms, helps form a clearer picture of our current reality.
Thank you so much for this brilliant lecture! I learned so much!
Thank you, Tik; you are brilliant. I wish you’d been around when I was growing up.
idealism is a major issue. I think it's leading to Amoral sophists in the modern day. I see so many similarities. They say that it's all relative, and social constructs.
So then you share the same opinion with Marx and Engels who disliked idealism.
@@SchmulKrieger Where exactly are going with that comment? what is the reasoning behind your comment?
@@JamieZero7 the reason is that Marx and Engels are portrayed as if they had agreed on most of the philosophies introduced here on this channel, while in fact they majorly wrote against them.
It is a major issue, it's delusional and leads to narcissism which leads to authoritarian stuff where you make your own reality.
@@SchmulKrieger They wrote against them, but it's not clear they overcame the basic flaws. You can be an idealist and claim to be a materialist. Marx never really did anything with his hands or checked his theories to see if they were true. It did not stop him from identifying with the working class. He believed in class consciousness which would create a new reality, and Engels believed in syndicalism. The only difference was in the State, but Lenin fixed that.
It is amazing how freely people though around these terms without having a working definition. Thank you for your work
TIK, while Christianity shares some superficial similarities to the hermetic/socialist/woke Ideology religions, they are just that, superficial. I'm entirely unsure how familiar you are with deeper Christian thought, so if I explain something you already know please don't take it personally. I also onow there's a lot of possibilities for why you'd compare Christianity to the leftist religion, for example most of your Western audience automatically thinks of Christianity when you bring up religion anyways, and not just to denigrate Christianity. I'm just trying to show some of the distinctions which are why the two lead to wildly different outcomes and show how the Christian religion is different from these others.
Some examples are:
1. Christianity has universally rejected platonist views and although does believe that God made the world we also believe that world is objective and not made in man's minds.
1a. There is no demiurge in Christian beliefs, the same God that made the world is the God that incarnated himself as Christ.
1b. In addition Christ himself rejected worldly government and said his kingdom is of another world. So anyone trying to bring about that kingdom on this world is foolish at best and downright deceitful and malevolent at worst.
1c. Christianity places no particular emphasis or importance on change or contradiction. If anything we see no contradiction in change because God made the world logically with rules and change is just one of the many consequences of those rules of nature, not some grand mystery.
2. The idea that man makes reality or that men are part of our can become God is called pantheism and is considered a form of idolatry which is wrong and evil in Christianity.
2a. In Christianity God is self conscious and always has been. He needs nothing, from us or anyone else, instead it is us who need him. So there is no god needing to recognize himself, it humanity serving some insane purpose like being a mirror for God. Instead we are simply his children who wishes to love and careful and raise up properly just like any parent should.
3. In Christianity Alruism isn't strictly speaking necessary. While self-sacrifice can be lauded, suicide is a sin. Jesus was quite clear that what is necessary to be saved was to accept him and to fight against sin in oneself. This doesn't mean being perfect, one may still stumble, but it does mean reducing sin and being genuinely apologetic and contrite when one's baser nature does win out and seeking to their change future behavior. Full self-destructive altruism is not required. Christians are supposed to carry out good works yes but this is out of a sense of thankfulness for our salvation and not a prerequisite to it, and even then the call for charity doesn't supercede other responsibilities like those to family, friends, and self.
3a. Christianity doesn't deny desire like Buddhism, we believe that humans' indivuality and desires are a gift from god and thus ought to be expressed. However sometimes those desires can become corrupted and twisted and then one must submit to god and allow him to correct the corruption.
3b. Sins in Christianity are clearly enumerated and are always the result of something good or neutral being taken to excess. Sexual immorality for example is an excess of sexual desire and oftentimes being directed wrongly. Wrath is misplaced anger etc.
3c. While in some situations self sacrifice is good in Christianity, a soldier sacrificing himself to save his friends for example. In cases where it wasn't absolutely necessary it is looked down on. Since Christianity says we were bought with the blood of Jesus, to harm oneself, even in service of another, is to insult God and the price he paid for you.
3d. Lastly all sins are ultimately self-damaging and self-destructive. Even something as simple as lying will eventually get you caught in a lie and lead to consequences. The Enemy, the Devil is the spirit of self-destruction, he seeks to nurture these self-defeating desires in men and weaken them and drive them away from God so he can devour them. Jesus explicitly declared He came that we might have life and have it to the fullest. God in Christianity doesn't want to oppress or arbitrarily restrict people everything He does is for our good. Quite different from the blind and deaf god of the Hegelians. Honestly most Christians would probably say that Hermeticism/Hegelianism is a parasitic corruption of real morality and personally I feel like it is the direct ideology of the antichrist, a sort of false Christianity to try and overpower the real thing and destroy it.
It's still a consciousness that created reality and which you identify with.
If someone came and identified with that consciousness, you would gang up, just like Jesus' disciples did. It's literally what the kingdom of Heaven is, a spiritual community.
It's no different than those things you think are left, while you are, I suppose right. Hegel is considered on the right as well.
@@OneLine122 not really they're talking about a spiritual hive mind. Whereas a simple voluntary community like Christianity is very different. And please understand that Christianity is voluntary, you don't have to join it. It's just that the natural consequences for not doing so are rather grim.
Excellent Job. Keep up the good work.
those ancient philosophers truly had some deep shower thoughts as 12yo would have, too "woah dude what if your blue is my pink woah"
They didn't get these ideas from shower thoughts, they got it from other practices.... Whatever you do, don't look up the word "Quibayo" on TH-cam
The basics. The human intellectual ability to invent categories and divide "things" into different categories, while discussing exceptions to said categories.
The gradations of certain general categories, like youth and elder, or the phases of the moon (appearance).
So much sophistic word games.
Slightly valuable, for understanding nuances, but overblown. That's my thoughts on the value of philosophy today.
What you see as blue could be perceived totally different by other beings. Thus, you could like blue color, but others would find it totally repulsive. Which in turn may lead to conflict.
One of your best ever! Great work mate ❤
Thank you for these educational videos
Well, Plato must have had an amazing "Magic Mushroom" garden.
The explaintion of the platonic forms here is extremely shallow. If it does interest you, I'd definitely do some research outside of these videos if it interests you.
Clown rights are human rights! Stop clownism now!😀
He did. Know who else did? The Apostles.
And a great Pen-ness
@@LlibertarianGalt Absolutely.
So since neither of them did, they both did in the same way. The negative way. Brilliant logic man. Bravo.
As a student of history i came here for the very detailed and well researched battle reports. As a student of the human condition im staying for the deep dive into philosophy and meta physics. Well done Sir Knight
here I am, 35 years later hearing Tik in tre voice of my philosopher teacher 😮. I never would have imagine those classes would be useful one day.
You couldn't use mugs instead of pens? You're killing my inner 8 year old.
Don't be so mean to Plato, he was thinking big thoughts without the same thousands of years of collective knowledge to draw upon.
He was wrong about a lot in hindsight, but many people would not have the imagination to be as wrong as he was, and he and his students built the foundations for almost everything we believe now.
Wow. I'm nothing if I'm not impressed by this.
I've developed a model of the political distinctions (which I'm not done explaining on my channel), and until watching this video, I was entirely prepared to accept Fascism as right wing, but especially with the way you wrapped it up, I now have an understanding of it which legitimately makes it a third position, because in a way it tries to assimilate both the attributes I described as motivating the Right and those motivating the Left... This... this is nothing if not elegant. Did I put you in S tier or S-, I need to check. Alright, you're in S. Needed to make sure. Damn. No, my apologies, I'm still stunned by the realization. I'd like to talk some day about this after I release my model. Seriously, nicely done.
Another fascinating video, Tik!
After reading "The Doctrine of Fascism" by Giovanni Gentile and Mussolini, I have come to the conclusion that Fascism is just a variation of the Philosopher-King theory of government and includes all of the potential problems with that approach. Violent transition of power, oppression of any minorities' culture and points of view, exploitation of the ruled for the benefit of those in power, etc. A surprising number of great philosophers throughout history have advocated for a philosopher-king type of government since they didn't believe that the general population could rule themselves.
Indeed 😅
"the greatest and most noble person in society is the philosopher, and they should be in charge" - said every philosopher ever.
Kant did, although the kind and the philosophers were separate. The king was simply deciding the religion, the philosophers it's application.
The general population has never ruled itself since the fall of Athenian democracy. What we have in the West now is a Republican form of government dominated by trade
By definition, people can't rule themselves.
Amazing.. I am speechless for your wonderful content. I appreciate it highly.
Good video.
Its interesting how Italy and Japan got lumped together with Germany despite them being ideologically quite different.
It was just convenient to do so since they all fought on the same side
That was one great eye opening video! I might need to get that book and read it myself.
Hey TIK, I wonder what you think of HistoryLegends? His coverage on the Russo-Ukrainian war is superb despite misinformation and disinformation from both sides, his simple mapping editing is very accurate enough for Russian soldiers unironically recording themselves watching his videos and Ukrainian soldiers are glad that he isn't spouting a dangerous amount of optimism (yes, the mainstream media is still insisting the war is in Ukraine's favor). His military knowledge is adequate for the coverage (like Deep Battle Doctrine and pre-Napoleonic battles). Of course, covering from both sides' perspective has gained a lot of flak from what you can consider as the Wheraboos of NATO (NAFO) and is often smeared as Russian propaganda despite having done videos covering Ukraine's strengths and perspective and has repeatedly revised history as the military situation changes.
Why are we bringing politics into this? The easiest way to divide people is to talk about the modern politics...
Personally prefer Military & History when it comes to covering the Russo-Ukraine war. HistoryLegends is more bias than you may think criminally so sometimes. He's no pro russian mil blogger but sometimes I question his authenticity. I used to watch him but.. he ended up being overly sensational and I can not stomach his videos similar to say The Enforcer.
@@Alte.Kameraden HistoryLegends is biased towards the Ukrainians, but he is also objective enough to not overtly cloud his videos. And when the Russians win he will tell so in his style. But he most definitely wants the Ukraine to win. Overall there are lots of youtubers talking about the Ukraine war. And I reckon the more of them you follow the better informed you will be. Certainly a lot better then what you get from the media. It's bizarre how much open source close to real time information can be had about this war. Imagine having that in WW2, with Rommel's social media channel duking it out with Monty's social media channel with endless videos on who got to hammer the other the most.
@@Alte.Kameraden I think the sensationalism is par on the course of the algorithm, and more so of his style of presentation.
@@korana6308 if you think TIK videos are not about modern politics, then you are not paying attention
Not even being allowed to dislike something is pure evil. It means that that thing will rule you no matter what, unopposed. That law is by itself already absolute tyranny and a violation of human dignity.
Gentile is talking about the collapsing of the wave front
Very informational!
Thank you.
So... will the ultimate goals of critical social justice result in fascism? Or national socialism?
It took me a few seconds to realise that you were saying "pen-ness". 😂
Another interesting presentation.
Keep up the good work.
👍😎
We reaching the noumenal realm with this one
Great work, TIK. Well done. Thank you.
I’m not qualified to have a detailed discussion about the definition of fascism but it seems to me that mainstream liberal elite politicians have been so detached from the public on issues ranging from immigration, multiculturalism, gender bending, wars abroad, the death penalty, government corruption etc that it might be worth empowering an authoritarian leader who promises to clear out those who obstruct the peoples will on these issues. Liberalism has brought our societies to such a crisis in terms of maintaining any national coherence that anything other than further empowering the existing institutions might be worth a risk
Well, sounds like you actually have a sound mind. And i agree. That is precisely the utopia that Germany was headed for, and so the masters squashed it and painted it as evil. In truth though, it's the other way around.
You described cultural marxlsm to a T. All these "intellectuals" here, as hard as they try to make it sound like they understand everything, and how much they despise marxlzm, only succeed in proving their hypocritical ignorance by throwing derogatory comments toward 30s Germany and labelling it in the same vein as marxlsm. While hailing our current society as the "morally superior". It's an echo chamber of incompetence and contradictions.
European culture virtually doesn't exist. National pride and cohesiveness is a relic of the past. Flags mean nothing, borders mean nothing, even languages and culture mean nothing. Our women and young generations have no respect. We serve only to sacrifice our quality of life in order to improve it for those who despise us.
I hope TIK you can observe here how quickly your channel is attracting Natsoc apologists.
@josephk.4200 i hope you can quickly touch grass and get some help.
Education is needed and you're doing a great job, sir~
6:10 "nothing ever happens"
"And our proof is that we see things happen."
I'm so happy you've mentioned it, TIK, but please give us a video on Schrödinger and quantum mechanics !
Great video. I have a few disagreements, but overall, this is a legitimate interpretation of the facts. Could you go more into depth with Franco?
God damn man, more great stuff from you all the time. I love it and am so glad that I can chip in a bit of filthy lucre to be a small part of what you do.
Andy.
If there is no objective reality, then blind people reading with their fingers are really not reading at all, they just spew whatever comes to mind.
Amazing video
Leaving a comment here just so youtube sends your next video to my recommendation
If a tree falls on a clown and nobody sees it, is it still funny ?
But there's no such thing as humor.🥴
Maybe it falls on his giant shoes and he's completely unharmed, and lives on to tell people it was funny. But that would only be secondhand funny, because you have to take the clown at his word. So no. No, it is not funny.
I'm sorry that a tree fell on you
I'm excited to see the upcoming chapters and it comes from the belly!
2:04 Would ever do one about how Fascism roots sprung up on French Socialists? The book, Neither Right Nor Left, goes into that.
A James Gregor talks about it and so does Giovanni Gentile.
That would be interesting.
@@LlibertarianGalt
Right, but the book goes in depth and shows chronological order in how it happened. Sargon did a book review of it.
@@Web720 Yes, A James Gregor translated the bulk of Giovanni Gentiles works into English and is worth looking into.
He doesn't touch upon Georges Sorel here?
I haven’t visited your channel in some years but i am catching up a bit now and i can conclude you did in fact not stick to tanks haha, incredible how much content you have released on all these ideologies.
"Fascist" is used as a generic antiwhite slur for anyone who contradicts the antiwhite narrative or threatens to even slightly forestall white erasure. Most allied soldiers were "fascist" by their definition.
Saying Plato agrees with Protagoras is insane. A lot of Plato's dialogues have mocking relativism (and specifically Protagoras) as a main theme. Kant's idealism argued for the obiectivity of knowledge PRECISELY BECAUSE it's transcendental. There is no way kantian idealism undermines objectivity, the opposite is true. Both Plato and Kant believed in the universality of truth, even though both disregarded the senses.
This one was amazing 👏
Thanks for the good work Tik.
I don't think that anyone at the top will call you out for attacking fascists and fascism because you attack their "religion". I don't think that a court will ever agree to that. Fascism is not a legal religious organisation, it has no mainstream definition of clerics, it has no divine creed. The mainstream doesn't understand (either truly or willingly) that a secular or atheist political ideology is a form of worship. Even apolitical atheism is a religion, because humanity has always psychologically needed to worship something or at least believe in something it can't fully know or understand. Both on an individual and group level.
Thank you for this excellent educational video, which helped to get me out of my ignorance ...👌👍
I think you're doing really important work showing these ideas outside a classroom and making them available. Personally, I think the philosophy of empiracism vs idealism is all very much mistaken. It should be obvious to anyone that both are limited in scope in a way that makes the argument silly. The pen, is a pen because humans created a pen. Penness is the quality of being a pen, which we created to instruct others on what a pen should be. Along the way to Platonism a mistake was made- God does not decide the forms we see and understand. Along the way to Empiracism, a mistake was made- there is a collective understanding of the forms. The problem with either side is that neither of these are made by God, but entirely by men. When I speak "Pen" to you, you imagine "pEn", but we can agree on the nature of it and create "peN", "PEn" or perhaps "PENn". Because all of this is just a lot of talk about talk. All this is people talking themselves into confusion about the nature of things. Reality is not necessarily as we perceive it- but it also is. Penness and the Pen are both real, but are also created by subjective creatures, who cannot truly be objective. So the camps will argue forever.
I appreciate someone that actually engages with the topic. A lot of the comments feel like the New Atheists, scoffing at a strawman. I don't agree with the forms being the best way to do things, but the idea of "The more something partakes in the features of its category, the more of that thing it must be." Balls are round, thusly a rounder ball is participating more in the form of Ball, though since we're in reality, at some point the ball is no longer perfectly round as a conceptual, abstract ball in our heads.
It was a great explanation introduction video about Facism its route, its out look to ,materialism, idealism, related to other philosophical views ,and creations of Italian 🇮🇹 Facism .. it was valued work intellectually...thank you respectful 🙏 ( TIK) channel. Appreciating 🙏Waiting for other videos
Always a joy to get out brains and preconceptions bent and reduced to the fundaments by this brilliant thinker.
And it's free.
Thank you sir, always a pleasure to listen and learn.
Just a tip on quantum mechanics.
What the double slit experiment/Schrogdiner's cat proves is that we are unable to KNOW the true, natural unaltered state of a particle, not that the universe is shaped according to an observer.
Plus, one must be careful with the word 'observer' here, observer might also mean 'whatever it is interacting with the particle'.
Pluuuus? What do you need to watch something? Light, and when you throw 'light' at an particle that you suspect to be in a region of space, you are...INTERACTING WITH IT, thus changing its trajectory or energy level. There is nothing about 'mind changing stuff' or 'universes splitting in half' or 'world being what we think it is'.
Those stupid theories only exist because of those insane unscientific bullshit about 'mind shaping reality' oozing in physics.
It took young me a long time to figure this out, simply because our science communicators are all garbage.
@@tbk2010 They don't know what they are talking about and some are just dishonest.
Thank you for the whole video, but thank you as well for your explanation of some of the foundational Greek Philosophy. I've read a lot of it before. I've even taught some of it. But this is the first time I've heard it described in a non-abstract manner where I could get my head all the way around it.
Hey, so, I have an issue with your source being Leonard Peikoff.
The issue is that Peikoff is an Objectivist, and his historiography of philosophy has issues with it mostly because it is derived from Ayn Rand's. I'm not a shitlib, I love reading Ayn Rand and her philosophy, but her thoughts on other philosophers is highly problematic and deranged at points (Her hated for Kant is incomprehensible).
This doesn't debunk your main thesis of Fascism btw, but you are getting into the realm of philosophy from history, and things get complicated here.
That's fair enough, but what specifically did Peikoff get wrong in his series?
Rand's distaste for Kant is anything but incomprehensible, if you understand Objectivism.
if it's any consolation it isn't a heterodox view, much of what I heard in the Peikoff lecture series was supported by the Arthur Holmes series
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 I had not heard of that series, thanks for pointing it out!
@@IBuildItHome I remember I had a deep respect for Kant until I found Objectivism.
Did you mention Nietzsche? Anyway good job! Empiricism vs. Rationalism. Very good.
"Hagel thought" Uh oh, not again
Yeah, but did he really?😂
This is so great. As you go on this journey I'd be interested to see if you can pick up on the Volkishness introduced by Fichte and Herder and carried on some by Hegel but also Heidegger and Schmitt. This seems an important component to create Dialectical Conflict towards the Absolute Ideal.