Lister’s Nietzsche reading is also really interesting. Hope you have him back on for Nietzsche this time around. I think he’s one of the scholars who read him as historical materialist.
That was a very interesting interview: both - the quotation of Rosa Luxemburg's statement regarding either socialism or barbarism as eventual states for society and the elaboration of the notion of ideology as Marx would have specified it - were particularly so. This interview might suggest possible future interviews of Richard D. Wolff? of Jaime Edwards? And this direction of inquiry suggests a whole host of other similar topics - modern monetary theory (Stephanie Kelton?), capital (Thomas Piketty?), etc. One might even look into the effects of behaviorism on the way in which education is presently structured? Regardless, that was another really fun interview - just like the earlier ones on the philosophies of mathematics, of set theory, of figurative language, of art and architecture, of linguistic conventions, of noneism (and Meinong...very intriguing!), etc. It should be fun to see which future roads this podcast travels.
@@ericd9827 Just wait till you see what's in store going forward...but i'm always happy to hear what people are interested in. who else would you like to see?
@@robinsonerhardt I don’t know if she does these sorts of interviews, but Christine Korsgaard on Kant and Aristotle and normativity in general would be awesome! Some other suggestions would be Sophie Grace Chappell on Bernard Williams, and Richard Yetter Chappell on consequentialism. And I know you just had him on, but Jonathan Wolff on Marxism would be fantastic.
Why did you delete the comment from a few days ago that pointed out how problematic it is for a tenured professor to conduct scholarly research on exploitation under Capitalism? That's a legitimate question. Not only as a matter of fact--given how Capitalistic Brian's role actually is when correctly described--but also given that scholarship on Marx in many ways entirely contradicts how he encourages readers to inherit his ideas, i.e. not through scholarship.
Socialism is barbarism! What's more barbaric than Soviet Russia, Red China, Khmers rouges Cambodia, east Germany's Stasiland? And here comes this detached, smug, vain academic and speaks against the relics of freedom in the west in favor of the socialism horror. This is so outrageous. It also amazes me how much of his argumentation is empty rhetoric built on mere negative associations of the word 'profit.' At no point really does he explain what's wrong with being productive (which means making more than you started with, which means making profit.) He merely assumes, presumably, or at least hopes that his listeners would, that the desire for profit of a producer is no different than that of a robber. This is just guilt by inessential attributes.
Unconscious NPC hears a word they've been trained like Pavlov's dog to respond with a list of preprogrammed talking points they got from television. Try talking to a person from Russia or China. You conveniently didn't list Vietnam because you also know not only was it the communist Vietnamese who defeated the US-backed Khmer Rouge but it was replaced by another socialist party (which is still in power today although it has moved away from it's socialist ideology unlike Vietnam and China). The fact you think profit = being productive just demonstrates you never even have taken a high school economics class yet are totally convinced of your opinion you got from television. Nothing will convince you out of your opinion because you don't think in the first place.
The notion that it is not some sort of labor theory of value that is in the end true in regard to human society is a blatant example of ideology. As evidenced by the weakness of the "arguments" that were here put forth by Leiter.
Lister’s Nietzsche reading is also really interesting. Hope you have him back on for Nietzsche this time around. I think he’s one of the scholars who read him as historical materialist.
*Leiter not Lister, effing autocorrect
A naturalist, not a historical materialist...
Would love to see you talk to some Nietzsche scholars sometime. Brian Leiter and Bernard Reginster are ones i've found most accessible as a layman.
Absolutely on the agenda!
That was a very interesting interview: both - the quotation of Rosa Luxemburg's statement regarding either socialism or barbarism as eventual states for society and the elaboration of the notion of ideology as Marx would have specified it - were particularly so.
This interview might suggest possible future interviews of Richard D. Wolff? of Jaime Edwards? And this direction of inquiry suggests a whole host of other similar topics - modern monetary theory (Stephanie Kelton?), capital (Thomas Piketty?), etc. One might even look into the effects of behaviorism on the way in which education is presently structured?
Regardless, that was another really fun interview - just like the earlier ones on the philosophies of mathematics, of set theory, of figurative language, of art and architecture, of linguistic conventions, of noneism (and Meinong...very intriguing!), etc.
It should be fun to see which future roads this podcast travels.
Brian casually describing Marx's journalistic stylings as, "rather polemical," made my day
is there a link anywhere to jaime edwards' dissertation? i couldn't find it online.
Thanks!
Eric you are way too kind
@@robinsonerhardt Haha, this is literally the video I was hoping you’d be publishing soon! No joke.
@@ericd9827 Just wait till you see what's in store going forward...but i'm always happy to hear what people are interested in. who else would you like to see?
@@robinsonerhardt I don’t know if she does these sorts of interviews, but Christine Korsgaard on Kant and Aristotle and normativity in general would be awesome! Some other suggestions would be Sophie Grace Chappell on Bernard Williams, and Richard Yetter Chappell on consequentialism. And I know you just had him on, but Jonathan Wolff on Marxism would be fantastic.
Why did you delete the comment from a few days ago that pointed out how problematic it is for a tenured professor to conduct scholarly research on exploitation under Capitalism? That's a legitimate question. Not only as a matter of fact--given how Capitalistic Brian's role actually is when correctly described--but also given that scholarship on Marx in many ways entirely contradicts how he encourages readers to inherit his ideas, i.e. not through scholarship.
I haven’t deleted any comments from anyone
How is it problematic?
Socialism is barbarism! What's more barbaric than Soviet Russia, Red China, Khmers rouges Cambodia, east Germany's Stasiland? And here comes this detached, smug, vain academic and speaks against the relics of freedom in the west in favor of the socialism horror. This is so outrageous. It also amazes me how much of his argumentation is empty rhetoric built on mere negative associations of the word 'profit.' At no point really does he explain what's wrong with being productive (which means making more than you started with, which means making profit.) He merely assumes, presumably, or at least hopes that his listeners would, that the desire for profit of a producer is no different than that of a robber. This is just guilt by inessential attributes.
Unconscious NPC hears a word they've been trained like Pavlov's dog to respond with a list of preprogrammed talking points they got from television. Try talking to a person from Russia or China. You conveniently didn't list Vietnam because you also know not only was it the communist Vietnamese who defeated the US-backed Khmer Rouge but it was replaced by another socialist party (which is still in power today although it has moved away from it's socialist ideology unlike Vietnam and China). The fact you think profit = being productive just demonstrates you never even have taken a high school economics class yet are totally convinced of your opinion you got from television. Nothing will convince you out of your opinion because you don't think in the first place.
Oh wow, you did it! You took down all opponents of capitalism!
Come back tomorrow, when you learn how to pronounce 'Nietzsche'.
The notion that it is not some sort of labor theory of value that is in the end true in regard to human society is a blatant example of ideology. As evidenced by the weakness of the "arguments" that were here put forth by Leiter.