Here's a quick hotfix (version 001.01) that corrects a few of the more obvious mistakes in the original map and timeline drive.google.com/file/d/1lHY2Q4Kpmy63Pzpz0Imhb5dfndKl9YQy/view?usp=sharing And yes, I intend to update and improve this timeline map as I continue to work on these topics 👍 The most obvious mistake in the video is that Plotinus was not a Christian. Thank you to those pointing that out.
You absolutely should spend 10 minutes reading the "new economic policy" of Lenin. That's the birth of fascism as economic model. You should also account that, as dialectic, in Lenin's mouth, "free market" doesn't means "free", or "market", "private property" doesn't means "private" or "property", and running state companies "for profit", doesnt means "for profit".
the video is good, but there are a few points that are worth adding or correcting: Firstly, Plotinus was not a Christian, he was a pagan, but some of his students were Christians and ended up influencing early Christianity. It's important to define this because the relationship between Christianity and Platonist philosophy changes depending on the period. Secondly, Plotinus didn't just disagree with some Gnostics, his thought was incompatible with any Gnostic strand. Gnosticism is based on dualism, the idea that matter and soul are completely separate. Neoplatonism has its main thesis in the idea of monism, that the physical world and the world of ideas coexist and are not separate. Thirdly, as important as Saint Thomas Aquinas was for the development of Western thought, to associate the Renaissance as a sequence of his thought is absurd. Historically, the renaissance occurred through the reintroduction of Neoplatonist thought in the West, especially by the Greek philosopher Gemistos Plethon, who was an influence on the creation of the Platonist academy in Florence. Fourthly, Kant did not revive Platonism, because the philosophical current never died. Fifthly, Nietzsche was not a hermetic, his thinking was based on biology and materialism, far removed from any dualist theory. His greatest influence, apart from Schopenhauer, whom he sought to surpass, was Heraclitus, who was also not a dualist. Sixthly, although Giovane Gentile was an important fascist intellectual, it makes much more sense to trace the political origins of fascism to Georges Sorel's national syndicalist movement. Seventh, as much as the video identifies the origins of the mystical aspects of Nazism, it fails to identify its political origins which are unknown even to the people who propagate these ideas. National socialism is an Austrian ideology developed by several individuals, but primarily by a man called Rudolf Jung, who was responsible for giving the ideology its theoretical body, in his main work “Der Nationale Sozialismus: Seine Grundlagen, Sein Werdegang, und Seine Ziele”, or “National Socialism: its Foundations, its Development, and its Goals”, which was published in 1919. I've always been fascinated by the fact that people discuss national socialism so much, but few people are able to pinpoint the creator of the ideology (Jung himself considered himself the Marx of national socialism). Eighthly, Julius Evola was never of the third position, Evola was a reactionary with various mystical influences, he was always critical of the political aspects of fascism and national socialism, but this association exists in people's minds because he already praised mystical ideas that existed specifically in the SS. He didn't approve of national socialism because he saw it as a plebeian and anti-aristocratic movement, but he saw something of value in the SS, as conservative and noble. He even has a book called “Fascism seen from the right” in which he criticizes fascism for being a revolutionary and nationalist ideology derived from the French extreme left. Associating evola with the third position is wrong, but there are people who take inspiration from some of evola's positions, but this is generally the meme ideology of the dissident internet right, which associates antogonistic thinkers (it's a question of vibes, not ideology). The video is good, but as the subjects covered are obscure by nature, it ends up creating some meaningless and superficial associations, connecting things that should be more separate (as in the case of the renaissance), or ignoring fundamental pieces (such as Sorel and Rudulf Jung). Despite this, the video is a great starting point to discuss these topics.
Thank you for your response. I agree that the subjects covered are obscure by nature, and it does appear you know a lot about these subjects. Here's a partial reply: 1) Yes, this was a mistake. I pinned a comment stating this. 6) Giovanni Gentile was the philosophical founder of Fascism. So Fascism was National Syndicalism with the philosophy of Actualism (Actual Idealism). Thus, Gentile was responsible for the Actualism. Sorel would be responsible for the Syndicalism part. In the updated video I will do on this in the future (once I've done a lot more reading), I'll hopefull remember to include him. 7) I've never heard of Rudolf Jung until now. Thank you, and I'll have a look at what he said. 8) I don't know if I agree with you. The modern Third Positionists are all over Evola. And as you said, he was inspired by what the National Socialists were on about. Perhaps it would be better to say he was Third Positionist-adjacent?
This video is a very good example of how an idealistic history of ideas and oversimplification thought can lead to a bizarre distortion of reality. Congratulations for this good job.
While TIKs selfdescription literally is: "TIKhistory is a TH-camr who creates detailed and accurate historical documentaries 🤡 that aim to put TV documentaries to shame (which usually have several fact checkers, TIK might profit from). […] TIK seeks to dispel the myths and distortions of the past so that we can learn from it and not make the same mistakes again.“ … like being syncretic? Thank you TIK, that you „dispel the myths and distortions of the past“, by reproducing them in your own video.
This map incredibly ignores all the French Enlightenment thinkers, such as Voltaire, Montesquieu, Rousseau and I don't know why. The importance of French Enlightenment thinkers is unquestionable, they have a great influence impact on modern liberalism. For example, Rawls' political philosophy is directly originated from Russel, Rawls himself calls his philosophy new Social Contract Theory. And Rawls has influenced almost all contemporary political thinkers, such as Nozick. What is more important is that French Enlightenment thinkers really have a HUGE influence on Hegel and Marx. Just have a look at Phenomenology of Spirit by Hegel or The Capital by Marx and you will find a lot of passages talking about the Enlightenment, liberty and the French Revolution. Hegel gave the highest praise to the French Revolution throughout his life, believing that it opened a new stage in human history. Also, the neglection of French Enlightenment thinkers let the author failed to reveal the linkage between Thomas Aquinas and Hegel-Marx branch. Many scholars nowadays have notice this linkage. The idea of chosen people and abandoned people by Aquinas evolved to Rousseau's idea about the morally upright and the morally corrupt and then to Leninism of progressivism and reactionism. This map have neglected the post-war European thinkers like Heidegger and Sartre. Due to space limitations, I will not list them one by one. In a word, the author didn't write the relation between Enlightenment movement, liberalism and Marxism. If the author had noticed this, then there would be as much reason to conclude neo-liberalism and left-wing has the same origination as that between left-wing and Fascism. In addition, the French-German tradition was fully covered and this makes me dissatisfied with this video. I hope the author will make a progress in the foreseeable future.
not just enlightenment and post-modern french philosophers, he also neglect the whole modern era, starting with Bacon which developed the Rationalist and Empiricists etc that are directly responsible for the enlightenment and all modern ethics, democracy and science. Which are still relevant today, unlike these extreme ideologies like Nazism, fascism or Communism, which only a minority holds in belief today(at least in their totality)
Similarly, Liberalism and Conservatism can't really be explained without unpacking the English Enlightenment in the context of the Napoleonic Wars shaping views about Locke, Paine and Home (and yes, I know he was Scottish).
The French? They still around... well if they are not for long😂(this is backed by data) y'all are done for not many French left and it will keep moving in that direction Surrender surrender surrender
anything like this would have to be very reductionistic and exclusionist I wish he would have said something about why he chose the thinkers he did, because if its just to prove a point then it's not very convincing I also very much doubt that you can't trace Hegel to Hitler, I feel like he did not even try
Yes, the sheer bulk of rationalistic thought will still not save Plato from the ultimate consequences of Aristotle’s initiation of egoism, individualism, and individual rights. I call it the “Octopus defense”: blinding ink.
Freemasonry is something I'd really like to see covered. You hear so much about them through history, but so few documentaries. I cannot remember a single BBC documentary about them.
Masonry is a tricky topic since there's competing orders and it's often very hard to figure out what order a certain text or idea belongs too. On one hand you have the Free Masons who built America as the biggest experiment in freedom and personal liberty in human history, and then you have the masonic order that helped egg on the French revolution. These are of course VERY different orders. And annoyingly, most of the primary source documents from centuries ago didn't know the difference between these orders. The Catholic Inquisition for instance was mostly dealing with the gnostic splinter Rites and their ban of Masonry was because of those groups, not the Scottish order in the then British Empire that didn't exactly allow the Catholic Church in like the French or Spanish kings did. So you'll find primary source documents from the Church that just represents ONE splinter of the Masons, not all of them. Modern documents and attempts at filling in the history are plagued with biased authors because, unsurprisingly centuries of propaganda for and against the Masons has skewed peoples opinions. Plus the secrecy that was just a built in part of all the orders has made it so you have to be obsessed with and almost certainly opinionated about the Masons to even bother digging. All of that has made it's really hard to find any objective source on the subject.
The only qualifications required are that you do not have a criminal record and that you believe in a "Supreme Being" and, all of the major faiths are represented. Matters of politics and religion are never discussed for the harmony of a Lodge. If you fit the aforementioned criteria and are aged 21 years or older you can join. All you need to do is find a local lodge and ask.... Try Google...
Bill Cooper's 43 episodes of MYSTERY Babylon are the best starting point for those who want to know what the Lodge is really up to. I have all 43 eps on a playlist on my YT channel.
Connection from Hegel to Nietzsche through Feuerbach was crazy. Some people already mentioned in comments but without Schopenhauer you cannot get to Nietzsche. Schopenhauer was influenced quite a bit by Kant but stands complete opposite to the Hegelians or other post-Kantians for that matter. Nietzsche also was influenced by Schopenhauer in a similar manner but eventually stands slightly opposite to him while criticizing Kant heavily throughout his works. You cannot even find slight mention of Hegel in his works, surprising for a German philosopher of his time. Anyone who wants to make the connection simply does through the urge to connect all contemporary German philosophers to Hegel, either in support or in opposition to him.
Here's a quick hotfix (version 001.01) that corrects a few of the more obvious mistakes in the original map and timeline drive.google.com/file/d/1lHY2Q4Kpmy63Pzpz0Imhb5dfndKl9YQy/view?usp=sharing
@@TheImperatorKnight Are you familiar with The Great Books of the Western World by The University of Chicago and Encyclopedia Brittanica? It’s an encyclopedia series lead by Mortimer Adler and has two volumes called the Synopticon that outlines themes throughout the collected works. I think it’s is a useful tool to help review the lineages you have drawn yourself in this video. It also helps to shed light on how complex and multifaceted modern ideologies are in relation to their origins across history. Someone like Freud developed his ideas from multiple angles that are hard to understand their shared relationships.
I have had this very conversation a few days ago. A map like this with the connections of the religions overlaid with this ideological map would be rather interesting to see. Thank you, your work is very good.
to be fair hes talking people & ideas not groups and the french revolution was a short time in history- 10yrs ? - in which philosophers ideas influenced
5:06 This is an inaccurate and surface-level jab against Epicurus. He was not a hedonist, nor were any of his students. Like many contemporary philosophers, he and his school advocated for a simple life.
If I had a critique, you once noted the importance of keeping things in chronological order. The map itself is pairing people on a vertical axis that are not paired in time. Marx and Gentile on the same axis, Marx and Darwin not on the same axis (or close to it). The entrance and circulation of their ideas concurrently, or successively, alters the zeitgeist and how it develops.
Yes, this was because I fell behind with this video. I was hoping to get it out last week, but piecing it all together, recording it and editing it took WAY longer than expected. It was a case of "don't get it right, get it done". I think I'll be doing a follow-up once I've covered a few more relevant topics, at which point I'll add to it, put the times on it, and just do a better job overall.
To improve or correct, create a timeline on the horizontal. Use a background box around the authors pictures and names to show the active time span of their work/life.
@@TheImperatorKnightDude, think you missed something: Rothbard was influenced was Mises but he mixes Mises and Aquinas. Not many people give Kant credit but he’s not far from Aquinas. Remember, Austrians are apriorical and that’s how Aquinas found his 4 thesis. Peace and keep going, I’d superchat if you had the button!
Friedrich Hayek should be added somewhere in here. Hayek studied under Mises but deviated away because he didn't believe in social planning, but wasn't a pure objectivist like Rand. He was a skeptic that favored individual liberty. Hayek admired Kant's emphasis on the limits of human reason, paralleling his arguments about dispersed knowledge and the unpredictability of complex systems. Burke’s emphasis on tradition and the limits of rationality shaped Hayek’s appreciation for societal evolution over engineered solutions. David Hume and Adam Smith's concepts of spontaneous order and skepticism of centralized authority profoundly resonated with Hayek’s views on individual liberty and the self-regulating nature of markets. While not explicitly cited by Hayek, I'm sure the founding fathers of the US influenced him too. Their principles of limited government, checks and balances, and individual rights likely aligned with and reinforced his advocacy for liberty and skepticism of central authority.
If I had a business, I’d petition Mr.TIK to come to the States on an H1B visa. The UK doesn’t have the yarbles to send redcoats over to extradite on hate speech grounds.
This is awesome, I sometimes try to explain to people the origins of certain ideologies, but it is a lot of different threads to tie in, having it all explained in one place is super useful
It reminds me of Redjac from Star Trek's _A Wolf in the Fold_ and egregores. From LotR "Sauron has regained much of his former strength. He cannot yet take physical form, but his spirit has lost none of its potency. "
Sorry to inform you but TIKHistory isn’t the most reliable source for cultivating your knowledge of the history of philosophy. His analysis is heavily influenced by his own political and ideological biases. I believe his goal is to exploit the ignorance of viewers who don’t have a strong grasp of the subjects he discusses
"I believe his goal is to exploit the ignorance of viewers who don’t have a strong grasp of the subjects he discusses" I may not know everything, but my goal is not to exploit the ignorance of my viewers. I provide my sources for a reason - so people can double-check. Not only did I make mistakes in this video (e.g. Plotinus being Christian, because he wasn't), but my "ignorant" viewers pointed these out. Some of them know more than I do, and are helping me find more sources of information so I can learn more, and then give that knowledge to my audience. If I was lying, my audience would be the first to call me out. My intention is not to mislead, and I'm not sure why you came to this conclusion. In the first minute or so, I even admit that some of my older statements in previous videos are now obsolete based on the knowledge I've discovered more recently. This is a continuous evolution on my part, and a building of knowledge over time.
@@Back2Me-q1y I don't pretend he is, I do reading of my own and have other sources of knowledge. I can't read everything though, I don't have the time or patience to do so, so it is helpful for someone to make a well-sourced video distilling what they have learned.
I only made one comment that entire series, so the fact you saw it means you watched it all :) I found out there was a follow-up series by Peikoff on the Modern History of Philosophy. It's not on TH-cam though, so I've linked to it in the description.
@@TheImperatorKnight I've heard Peikoff's second course on Modern Philosophy. It's fantastic! Looking forward to your thoughts once you get through it.
Anyone that takes Peikoff or Ayn Rand seriously has never studied philosophy as an actual academic subject. They are not well regarded by genuine philosophers.
I hope you expand on this video with the academic vigour that you usually give us. This is an opinion piece. Enjoyable and I agree with you but this one needed more time.
I wasn't super interested in the video when I accidentally tapped on it, but being ready for bed, I decided to give it 5 minutes. I just reached the end. Very interesting illustration TIK! As you learn, we learn with you. It is great to be able to track your thought development and hear your musings. Most importantly, you are willing to correct and amend your thinking.
Rousseau is absolutely key, he inverted the Christian moral system (sin is natural and virtue oppressive), stated that nature was good, wished to destroy social bonds and changed the meaning of freedom from freedom from the passions to freedom to do as you please. He created the utopian vision all left wing movements have been chasing ever since. When I talk to a left wing intellectual I hear Rousseau cited much more often than any other of these figures, Plato is old lamps for new, Rousseau is the future envisioned.
Damn, you are on to something! Of coarse, only someone so liberal that even his own party executes him could have created our modern ideologies. Because every Western ideology is eating itself. Did you figure this out?
He did not invert anything. There was always natural morality (rule of strong if you will) , and "civilized" morality trying to soften nature. Nietzsche described this as master and slave morality.
Agree! In addition, add Jean-Jacques Rousseau ("Social Contract" that legitimate political authority comes from the consent of the governed), and Baron de Montesquieu (The "Spirit of the Laws" introduced the idea of the separation of powers within government into executive, legislative, and judicial branches). In addition, if you are citing Mises you really should include David Ricardo as well.
You’ve shown me how interconnected economics is with history - they are practically inseparable which makes it so weird that they are never studied together in traditional education
Been a while since ive been this early. Absolutely love these type of videos I found your channel from a Professor who is an expert on communism and Marx as well as Ayn Rand. Professor Nikos . As well as Yaron Brook mentioned you on his show. Great content keep it ip
This is great, amazing to see all this done together. Thanks so much. This is stuff we really need to understand, even those who think their thinking is somehow unique and novel. Thanks for doing the hard work.
Rousseau is the one that started the idea of ''the noble savage'' and that society corrupts us. He is the french part of marx where Kant is his german part. Very influential in modern philosophy even if its indirectly.
I have read The Social Contract several times - it seems to me an extremely fair and rational explanation of the human condition and political structures. I see nothing there that suggests revolutionary violence, but I can see how others may have taken some of his ideas (out of context, as is often the way) and used them to justify their own political agenda. That “Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains” is an astute observation and what follows is a discussion of why this is so. You may disagree with everything Rousseau says in his discussion, but his initial observation remains the reality. How would you explain it?
@@alexandermukai7724how is man born free? First, I want to make it clear I'm no scholar nor have I read much of the books where these guys wrote about their ideas. But I recently heard this quote again and I couldn't disagree more. How come men are born free? It sure is an idea of certain appeal. But being realistic, man is born subject to so many limitations. Natural limitations of which I would blame no one in particular. To start with, you cannot even feed yourself. So you're totally dependant on somebody else. Be them your parents or somebody else. And that's only one of the many many limitations we have as individuals. So first of all why does he come up with that part of the quote? Probably he's got some idea in mind which I haven't got yet. Please tell me what you think he's trying to say there. If I may try to speculate what he wanted to say, I'd say this (correct me if I'm wrong): Man is free in his purest and most natural condition. But someone (society?) has put him in chains. Consequently he must rebel in order to attain his original freedom. .. If so, I think it's not realistic at all. As I said we are all subject to gazillions of limitations. Most of them are result of natural conditions. And society or family or whoever we rely on are the ones that usually help us overcome those limitations. And therefore there's no need to rebel. And his idea of primitive men being super wise and unpolluted is rather wrong.
@@gordonintendo What I understand Rousseau to be saying is that we are born into this world with the freedom to behave just as we wish towards ourselves and others. We are, though, social animals, with a certain intelligence that allows us to understand the consequences of our actions. This leads us to voluntarily limit our freedom, in the interest of ourselves and others. Our ‘chains’ are those of cultural customs and laws. For example, we have the freedom to kill anyone we wish, therefore anyone else has the freedom to kill us, if they wish. I’m sure that you would like not to be killed by someone else and therefore appreciate that you live in a society that has laws that prohibit murder and a system that punishes murderers. For you to receive the protection of the law, you yourself should adhere to the law - the law must apply equally to all [Rousseau discusses this point in his book, pointing out how the law can be misused, for example: the law that prohibits people from sleeping under the bridge applies equally to the rich man and the poor.] That we recognise the value of limiting our freedoms for the sake of the safety and security of ourselves, our family, our friends, our community and (in a truly mature and rational culture) all the people of the world, we therefore need to consider how we go about doing that. This is the basis of the Social Contract.
@@alexandermukai7724 I always make a distinction between good writing and good logic. Usually, rhetoric needs both because its aim is to convince you. Or, at least, to move you. It doesn't try to find the truth. If you need truth the only option is logic and even that is not a guarantee and sometimes is ugly and requires high brain power. For example, how could I explain you the Schrodinger cat mental experiment when I don't have words for wave function collapse, only mathematics? And this problem is quite serious when it comes to explain the nature of reality. On the other hand, Rousseau, Nietzsche, Cioran (yeah, I'm Romanian, I used to be a member of Romanian Communist Youth, UTC; I'm also a physicist - after the fall of communism in '89 I read a bit of those guys because I wanted a breath of mental sanity), all those guys are trying to impress, to look good. What they're doing is rhetoric. And Marx had no economic, psychological, or sociological studies. Heck, he would have needed all of them to write Das Kapital properly, because, obviously, he couldn't see the future. So how about “Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains”? Well, does the man just walk away after he is born? No need for air, water, maternal milk and care or education? Ok, I understand Russeau wasn't a mother and he didn't remember his first steps, but a bit of external observation always helps to prevent someone from saying that. And about the second part, are you chains right now? Are those made of high-tensile carbon steel? Or maybe of gold. How about chains of dreams and desires? Or... "my chains are made of clouds kissing the morning leaves, tiny droplets of sun erasing nightmarish grieves"? Hmmm? Does that sound good? Well, I just made it up and I didn't want to say anything worthy, I simply wanted to sound good. My point is “Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains” is open to debates and interpretations. It's not as straight as E=m*c^2. But so is the Bible. Metaphors, allegories, symbols, and so on. Umberto Eco's The Limits of Interpretations would be a good read, the guy is (was) a good writer himself (Name of the Rose, Foucault Pendulum), but also an academic studying and teaching semiology. I'm not saying J-J.Rouseau's ideas don't have merit, but most and foremost the guy is a very good writer, not a logician with specializations in psychology, sociobiology, and economy. He was a philosopher and a composer, no wonder he put a so strong accent on introspection and subjectivity. The real problem is that other guys, read Hitler or Lenin, took some pages from him and turned them into propaganda. And thus propaganda became a science in its own right. At first, it was colored by ideological affinities, but no longer today. The antidote is critical thinking. Apply to Nietzsche the same advice he gives about religions and you'll how hollow he could sound. Because some human values make sense, the stories they use to encapsulate themselves have strong echoes within the soul. But. at the same time, one should take care of the feelings and sentiments that could carry their own logic and targets, which may not be the same as the logical arguments presented within the discourse or the underlying target of the whole discourse. Layers within layers... Today I would not read Rousseau, or, for that matter, Cioran, Nietzsche or Marx, unless I want to taste a certain writing genre, or document their work and refer to that. But not for finding the truth or solutions to our contemporary problems. Under the bottom line, if I'm permitted to become a bit philosophic, no, the Man is not born free because nothing comes into existence just simply like that, tabula rasa, one moment it isn't, the next, it exists and it always existed; the energy is conserved, the causality is a limiting thing. Time is a thing, DNA is a thing. And if the soul is a thing, then certainly it's blind to what happens when the man is being born. But some sort of chains do exist. Be they sociocultural chains, biological or purely physical chains; a Man has a mass; a Man has a measurably limited perception of space and time and retaining capacity. There is nothing to do about some of them. Absolutely nothing. What we can really do is realize that our chains are interlinked; we're not living in one-person caves. Through those sociocultural chains, we can act, I can agree with that. Not unshackle them, but act through them (in '89 we left behind a communist society; did we get unshackled from those communist chains? Nah, we, as humans, were still the same, more or less, brainwashed people). So, make ourselves, those around us, and society as a whole, better. I can agree with that and here's a huge discussion. But then there is no way I would put that in those words JJRouseau used...
Saying Fascim and Marxism are the same because they can be traced back to Hegel is quite a creative interpretation of the history of philosophy. Hegel was a revolution in philosophy, so any philosophy that came after it was in some level influenced by it. You forgot to mention the difference between the right wing hegelians and the new hegelians. Feuerbach is actually an epistemological rupture that makes dialectical materialism a different line of thought than right wing hegelianism (dialectical idealism) and other leftist hegelian idealisms. Marxism is at the same time hegelian dialectics and a departure from hegelian idealism, which solves the puzzle you pose as why to marxist distance themselves from fascism and puts them together with nazism. The problem which you overlook is the difference between idealism and materialism, so your interpretation ends up not making much sense. On a side note, your way of thinking is akin to idealist hegelianism. You tell the history of ideas as if they came from the thinkers minds, dettached from society's material history, the real day to day life and political struggles that give rise to different ideologies.
Please do an in-depth video on the Strasserist branch of Nazism! People like to say that they were the "actual Socialist" branch of the Nazis but in saying that they're acknowledging you can have a non-Marxist version of Socialism because the Strasserists were anti-Marxist like the Hitler branch and Mussolini's Fascists were.
Hitler did not start off anti-Communist. Like Mussolini he flirted with Communism at first (because he liked the totalitarian nature of it probably), but by being petite bourgeois from Austria, he probably had a Bavarian socially conservative reaction and rejected it. He preferred the mytical racial mumbo-jumbo of the Thule society as the Nazi ideology totalitarian basis. I knew about that before TIk pointed that out.
@@kryts27 Yeah he hung around with them and when he was an architect and fellow workers in the same trade wanted him to join a union and become a commie and kept shoving it down his throat from what I remember reading in Mein Kampf so it turned him off from Marxism.
Very nice video, but regarding Julius Evola I would have some remarks to make. 1. Firstly it would be a mistake to see Evola as some continuation of modern philosophy. Philosophy as he saw it, is a very limited form of knowledge that has only supporting role. At his younger age he wrote few philosophycal books where he formulated his idea of Absolute individual (something he called magical idealism) and passionatly criticized Fitche, Hegel and others, but ultimately he moved away from the world of academic philosophy and adpoted Traditionalism as his intelectuall framework. Traditionalism proclaims the existence of a perennial wisdom which consists of primordial and universal truths that form the source for, and are shared by, all the major world religions. The traditionalists state that ways how to reach these truths are via intelectuall intuition or revelation and philosophy if it is of any worth only uses its language to explain what can be explained or symbolicaly express some aspects of those truths. He claims that those traditions were lost or denied by modern world and therefore he is its avid critic and everything else it represents. His ideas are therfore not his but rather that of manifeted traditions, as such you can put him next to Plato, Thomas Aquinas or Veda, for he is certainly closer to them then to the modern thinkers who since Kant refused metaphysics (even as philosphical discipline let alone transcdental one). 2. He was not fascist nor national socialist. In short fascism and NSDAP can be seen as modernist, materialist and collectivist (plebian as would Evola say). As was stated above he was in direct oppostion to them e.g. traditionalist, transcendentalist and elitist/monarchist. He had some cooperation with them becouse he saw them as potential platforms from which a new order may come but ultimately refused them and even critisicized their very core. He refused modern racism which is solely materialist (according to him human consists of body, soul and spirit, which all of them had their own types or races and therefore even a jew could have an aryan spirit), he despised modern state which he saw as mechanistic and not organic and had only contempt for nationalism which destroyed the caste system and hierarchies in society that safeguarded individual tendencies and enabled complementary harmony in society. There is even a report on him in publicized archives of Waffen SS, where they write to Himmler that: “The reactionary views of Julius Evola are in complete oppostion to the progresive teachings of National Socialism. ”. Not to mention that as he would write: “My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.” 3. He was critical of the neospiritualists and theosophists of the age. He saw them as mere amateurs or even worse as spreaders of subversion. For him people like Blavatsky were just modern lunatics who combined and interpreted ancient teachings as they saw fit. He propagated idea, that only legitimate authorities that were initiated in the orthodox traditions and have direct experience with metaphysical reality are fit to interpret them and intiate others. The fact that they have same areas of interest does not mean that they are one and the same and even less that he was influenced by them. In conclusion it is very unfortunate to say that he tried to combine Hegels hermetic idealism with Ariosophy (both of them he criticised). His teaching are certainly not derived from fascism, or other modern ideologies for that matter and therefore he cannot be seen as founder of third position. As wiki defines it: Third Position's ideology is characterized by a militarist formulation, a palingenetic ultranationalism looking favourably to national liberation movements, support for racial separatism and the adherence to a soldier lifestyle. Apart from soldier lifestyle he would hardly find anythin of worth in the rest.
Hi Tik. I was one of the happy viewers who suggested Ominous Parallels by Leonard Piekoff. Seeing your struggle with Socialists beginning to develop along philosophical lines is what prompted it. I'm glad that you found it as beneficial as me. I can only describe this development as a stranded sailor throwing a message in a bottle out to sea and seeing a rescue plane fly over months later. I'm surprised that you've taken the turn towards criticism of the Occult and mystical aspects of totalitarianism and western political thought. Not because I'm opposed to this line of inquiry, but because I thought it was so obscure and far afield that no one besides me would dream of connecting those two. Fortunately for us both there's an author by the name of Joseph P Farrell who has done a good deal of the heavy lifting. The three main books in question are: 1. Thrice Great Hermetica and the Janus Age: The role of Hermetic and Occult ideas in the middle ages and Cathar crusade. 2. Financial Vipers of Venice: The role of secret societies and finance in the Renaissance and the rediscovery of classical (Aristotilean) thought. 3. Babylons Banksters: The role of alchemy and mystical theology in fractional banking and debt based money. If I was going to extract a single point to summarize the relevant point from an Objectivist point of view: *There exists an ancient intellectual tradition within Hermeticism that can best be described as enlightenment rationalism and even Americanism, and that it's practitioners have been working as hard on their project as the Platonic/Totalitarian version are. Its practitioners seem to be people like Giordano Bruno, Davinci, Newton, and the American founders.* I must give you encouragement but also a warning about this path of research: First, Farrell is very much a mystic himself and is a theologian. Everything he says and writes must be abstracted out of this context. Second, he speculates. Often. But to his credit he is very clear when he's going out on a limb. Third, he is content relying on what can be called "ancient whistle-blower testimonies". That is to say documents that don't have official citation or are deemed apocryphal by the corporate academic world. Use these at your own risk. Fourth, he sometimes clearly asks what can only be called leading questions as well as follows a predetermined conclusion. He frequently seems to base his conclusions on the narrative beats of Holy Blood Holy Grail (the non-fiction book that inspired the Dan Brown novel The Davinci Code). I don't reject it outright. But we have little in the way of hard evidence for it in my view. I think he should be more clear about this inspiration. There is a last book I must mention parenthetically called Yahweh the Two Faced God. It reads like it could have been cribbed from Piekoff's own book The DIM Hypothesis. If you're in an Objectivist sort of mood I would speed read it in a few hours since it's barely a pamphlet. By reading Farrel's work you will almost certainly see the great physical opportunity that now exists to put a permanent end to tyranny on earth despite endless news to contrary. Thanks again for your hard work towards this goal.
Man I just checked Joseph P. Farrell and his books and work looks for me completly insane and unhinged conspiracy theory. "First, Farrell is very much a mystic himself and is a theologian. Everything he says and writes must be abstracted out of this context." I dunno man, not sure if you can take anythings he says seriously.
Bill Cooper read Ominous Parallels by Peikoff on the radio when it came out. Bill exposed Masonry in the 90s. I have those broadcasts on a playlist on my channel.
@florianb2329 (But is this really the case?) I've debated whether to reply to this comment and decided that we're at a point where the concept of "conspiracy" should be explicitly addressed. So don't take this lengthy reply as directed at you personally. I also have no interest in defending Farrell directly. Rather It's meant to address the entire category of reasoning and the objections of passing readers. Before WW2, "conspiracy theories" were just called "political science": Quoting Lance DeHaven Smith: "Understanding these intellectual developments and their significance requires drilling down from the broad sweep of history that we have been discussing to focus on roughly the first decade after World War II and the competing ideas of three scholars of that era. Before the war, much research in history and political science looked for behind-the-scenes decisions. After the war, the new method, referred to as “behavioralism,” examined individual behavior in contained settings (such as voting behavior, administrative behavior, consumer choice, etc.) and sought to identify principles and strategies underlying behavioral patterns." Lance's book makes specific mention of Plato's theory, and addresses its role in elite political motives. TiK seems aware of the connection to Plato. The point that Smith makes is that the connection is direct and explicit: *"Strauss never defines what he means by “noble lies” beyond referring to Plato’s The Republic, which is where the term originates. But this was certainly no oversight on Strauss’ part, for it leaves the matter open, which is to say, unlimited. For Plato, noble lies included myths and stories about the society’s origins, rigged lotteries for choosing marriage partners, infanticide, and other actions to create a strong people willing and able to defend themselves in a hostile world. This short list would seem to imply support for many antidemocratic elite conspiracies, including assassinating political leaders, framing dissidents, fomenting mass fear, demonizing rival societies, and letting enemy attacks succeed so that the masses are galvanized to deal with a gathering threat. [3]"* The role of Strauss is also mentioned at length in "The Power of Nightmares" documentary. There is a concept in psychology called "hypocognition". There was a group of natives that did not have words for grief. When death or upsetting events occurred they would blame "bad spirits". This lack of language for concretizing related phenomena in the abstract is mentioned by Orwell as "Newspeak" in 1984. Lance coins the term "SCAD" (State Crime Against Democracy) to concretize the concept that "Conspiracy Theory" is meant to displace: That is high crimes committed by elites. "Naming the Taboo Topic In what follows, I shall attempt to reorient analysis of the phenomenon that has been assigned the derisive label of “conspiracy theory.” In a 2006 peer-reviewed journal article, I introduced the concept of State Crime against Democracy (SCAD) to displace the term “conspiracy theory.” [13] I say displace rather than replace because SCAD is not another name for conspiracy theory; it is a name for the type of wrongdoing about which the conspiracy-theory label discourages us from speaking. Basically, the term “conspiracy theory” is applied pejoratively to allegations of official wrongdoing that have not been substantiated by public officials themselves." The assassination of William Morgan by the Freemasons led to the anti-Freemasonic party. It took on a cultural significance similar to the death of Jeffery Epstein. The reason it resulted in organized political action was because political science at the time did not have a way to dismiss explicit, public criticism of suspected elite crimes. The Freemasons almost dissolved as a result of the political pressure. This kind of pressure isn't available to react to Epsteins death today. After the depression, Congress also formed the Reese Comittee due to suspicion that rich organizations were attempting to subvert democracy. Before that a group of wealthy industrialists attempted to overthrow the government in the Business Plot. There is enough evidence now to suggest that these groups have mostly succeeded in their goals. Simply put, "Conspiracy theory" is better defined as: "Political science from the perspective of the victims of political action while official political science is from that of the participants." The academic term for it, coined by Charles A. Beard is "Critical Historiography."
Thank you for this video. All of these things have been rambling around in my head, atomized, and this really helps tie it all together for me. Been reading about all this stuff for the past three years.
In fairness to Mises, while Kant did influence him especially on epistemology and the role of methodology in economic science, Mises adopted a much more realist interpretation of Kant that's more compatible with Aristotelianism, probably because of Carl Menger's influence who was Aristotelian. Rothbard is also an empiricist and aristotelian who worked on reformulating praxeology away from Kantian framework and more into an Aristotelian-Thomist one
@@dreyri2736 Kant denies that humans can know anything real about the world via experience. Kant says that we know only our experience of things and are totally removed from things in themselves because our methods of perception are specific. As Rand put Kant's epistemology: man is blind, because he has eyes, deaf, because he has ears.
More like TIK is biased here. Objectivists society was definitely a cult - many people wrote about that, but TIK is more concern with Kant influence on Austrians. I heard Peikoff's lection also - when he misrepresented second amendment.
Hello Tik please also do the map of the liberal/libertarian movement ideology map we really want that and also all the post-materialist political ideologies Feminism/enviromentalism .Thank you and also i really want to see the origins/history of psychology that you mention . Everyone that wants the same please like for the support of the creator
I agree with this comment. As much as I am fascinated by the Occult Right, the present day left of liberalism and feminism is much more prevalent. You just have to watch the popular Whatever podcast to see how much Feminism impacts everyone's day to day lives and philosophy.
For this map I'd highly recommend the book "Cynical Theories" by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay. It lays out the chains of history and influence almost exactly like TIK does in this video.
There is a line from feminism/environmentalism and these sort of ideas that go from Marx to Antonio Gramsci to the Frankfurt School, if you're interested in doing some research.
liberal yes but why feminism and environmentalism - they are late not full ideologys and arent about govt social and economics which these philosophiers covered are- they are minor and irrelevant sectarian movements about one aspect of something
Fun fact ,the old school greek philosopher guys like Thales often used water = liquid , earth = solid , fire = plasma(energy) , air=gas ,ether = space-time. They also used these words to describe the elements themselves but it does not take much training(once you've been told the above paragraph) in reading their tractates until you can tell when it is the philosophical usage and when it is the elements.
Thanks for the info. It is easy to take this stuff literally, and I have thought of these terms like the fire element being a sort of metaphysical fire and not just a description of some phenomenon that is fire-like. It's so easy to just go with your intuition with these things, instead of going into a really complex "What did the ancient Greeks 2500 years ago understand fire as?". I have been too literal the way I have read stuff like Aristotles element system, and thought it was a bit weird. I thougth that Aristotles element system works pretty well but is a bit too rough. I need to reread that stuff now with new eyes. (It could be that Aristotle and Plato changed the stuff to more metaphysical since you mentioned the older guys)
Even if I deeply disagree with your map, at least you created it. I had always enjoyez synoptic stuff, aka the time put in charts. And when I say "at least", it's not ironical. I'm englued into deep procrastination so I really admire those who turn their thoughts into concrete work.
Disagree with the Epicurean hedonism being a plague... It's quite stupid to say that Epicurus believed in hedonism, he rather believed in discipline and abstinence.
A very nice video. If you continue to upgrade the map, it would be great ! Correcting the links of Nietzsche and Hitler (Based in his link to Schopenhauer). And excluding Evola from the links between fascism and darwinism, because evola is more related to the perenialist tradition (Going back to a lot of characters and religions in history, buddism, hiduism, islam...). Creating the links between darwin and aristotle is essential too.
This brought back memories of "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure," in which the titular slacker goofball duo have a report due for history class, but haven't written anything, build a time machine which they use to go back in time and personally interview the subjects of the assignment, starting off with the Greek philosopher "So-CRATES." "Socrates" of course has three syllables, not two; "Thales," similarly, has two syllables: "they-LEES". The "-es" suffix is common in Greek names, and always a distinct syllable: see also "Heracles," "Sophocles," "Erastothenes,"etc Also, the German "ö," usually transliterated to "oe" in English, represents a kind of "er" sound, but with the lips rounded like "o"; "th" is like English "t", so "Goethe" sounds like "Ger-tuh" Good start at a complicated topic regardless. Most people don't realize just how popular the philosophies underlying National Socialism were, and this chart helps put them in perspective. Since you mention Volkisch ("folx"), although not a direct antecedent to NatSoc, but a parallel growth, you might want to check out W.E.B. Dubois ("Do-boyz") "The Souls of Black Folk"
comfort misinformation, and simple ignorance of what a dangerous ideology looks like is what ill chock it up to. Then theres the schizo idea that the old world money just keeps everyone fighting and poor to keep them from taking control of the world and truth to our history.
Autistic individuals are more prone to demonic possession, coming from someone who has it. Thankfully Jesus freed me from many of my past afflictions. Jesus is the one and only hope for humanity
bro, nice video, but just as you didn't connect Aristotle to Plato you need to disconnect Nietzsche from Hegel, you really need to read more Nietzsche , the guy had 3 philosophical periods , and yes his first period might have been hegelianism, but by the 3rd period he was his own thing, quite a drastic evolution which we rarely see in philosophers.
I think this is exactly the point that complicates things wildly. Many or even most thinkers throughout history had changing ideas and different periods as you said, so maybe it could be useful in these sorts of ”mindmaps” to specify what specific thought inspired who and why.
@@speggeri90 it still doesn’t make sense to connect him to Hegel, because what he is most famous for, is his last period, which was very different from Hegel. It would make more sense to connect him to Schopenhauer, who is then again connected to Kant.
many descendant thinkers of nietzsche(deleuze, land) generally argue on behalf of nietzsches violent anti-dialectics/anti-hegelian position. however i wouldnt expect the creator of this video to have read a single philosophy book ever, let alone something as dense and mind-bending as Deleuze.
In regards to the Freemasons I read John Dickie's "The Craft". And from what I recall from the book and my general knowledge, Freemasons did originate from medieval guilds, but they started transitioning into a cult in it's modern form sometime around 17th century on the British isles. There would later on be a division in doctrine sometime around the French revolution, with Freemasonry splitting into the conservative English branch which follows the ancient rites (it remains pervasive in anglosphere countries) and the liberal Continental branch which follows the rites of the moderns (technically started out in the British isles as well, but French lodges were the ones that kept the rites of the moderns and then spread it to most of continental Europe). The regular English lodges typically do not allow in black people or women, while Continental lodges are a lot more liberal with who's allowed. One interesting fact about Freemasonry is that a lot of notable cults and esoteric groups that formed in the west during 18th and 19th centuries (from the Illuminati to possibly even the Mormons) were created by masons that were inspired by or even integrated a lot of freemason ideas and rites into their secret societies. The Catholics naturally didn't like any of them, as masons ranged from secular political activists, to esoteric nerds that thought eating Egyptian mummies will heal their ailments (Surprise fact... it did not...). So overall, it would be more accurate to say that Blavatsky was influenced by esoteric groups spawned from Freemasonry, rather than Freemasonry itself. As due to Freemasons like Bram Stoker being obsessed with esoteric shit is what led to a Balkan folk lore creatures - vampires, becoming a staple of British and American culture in a form of Dracula. The reputation of Freemason societies being satanic didn't come out of nowhere, and it was due to similar reasons as to why metal music used to be seen as satanic (now that I think about it, it shouldn't be a coincidence why black metal even has a whole sub-genre called NSBM. Being obsessed about the esoteric and norse mythology just leads you to fascism apparently).
but the diagram is missing a lot of philosophers/theologians like Luther, Calvin, Descartes, Hume, Husserl, Malebranche, Wittgenstein, Francis Bacon (who created the scientific method and was a Christian) and a lot more that I don't even remember. also when you say that there are philosophers who are mystics you're actually referring to the fact that they have metaphysics and this is not against science in any way, it is the absence of metaphysics that comes to deny the principle of causality (as Hume and the Vienna Circle did). but I must say that it was still a good video.
@@Sound557 Funnily enough, outside of Europe this word is used without any negative connotation. For example here, in Armenia, many common words contain the root ayr/ary and we still use it without ideological meanings. Also, in Iran and India of course, this word has no negative meaning.
@@bondex392 It means noble, right? People don't like the racial connotations but acknowledging the Aryans helps show the shared roots of many branches of the human family
When you decided to put the disasters created by some leaders and political movements inspired by Marx it put a stain on the whole video. In a list including mass famine and Cambodian genocide you also just say "Cuba". Apparently Cuba's existence belongs in the same category as one of the worlds worst known genocides because Marx? 15m of the video is you talking about Nazi's but there's no "(holocaust)" or "(ww2)" next to his name. You claim at the end of the video that you don't want to include your person political views but they were made abundantly clear not even halfway through. Western bias at show here
Well done, TIK!! I personally appreciate your work and research, and the excellent map of connections and evolution. This looks like the core of a good book, you have done the work and research, you just need to convert your understanding into writing, perhaps beginning with this video, and pull in from other videos. Not that it would make you rich or anything, it may not earn much at all. So sadly, the project would need to be a side-work and labor of love, while your main work earns your income. Cheers! - Ken Hoganson, Professor Emeritus and Ph.D. Computer Science. P.S., I might volunteer to help, though I am no expert, but have been curious since my undergrad years. I have published textbooks in C.S. -- I could help as an unpaid reviewer or contributor, as my retirement is fortunately, very comfortable.
This chart simply shows that for the overwhelming majority of people, there is the spirit to believe in some sort of supernatural force, unconsciously at least.
Not just the majority, everyone. Everyone, whether they realize it or not, believes in something. If not a deity, then a concept, whether that be an ideology or some kind of natural force. Even the rejection of religion becomes a religion, if you follow it fanatically.
@@dannydacheedo1592 The spiritual need in human beings is as present and required for a healthy mind as any other biological need. No matter what anyone thinks, they very likely worship something in life.
@@dannydacheedo1592 Yes, and ultimately no matter how hard a person dedicates themselves to operating on reason alone, digging into down to the foundations of their rationality will eventually reveal a nonrational presupposition that everything else is built upon. This is because reason and empiricism are tools with limitations like any other. Perception is determined by valuation, and thus reason must to some degree rest on some a priori valuation. It is possible and beneficial to test reasonings based on other valuations without necessarily accepting them, or even to use the results to adjust your own a priori valuation, but it is not possible to avoid a starting set of values and assumptions that determine the application of reason. And there lies the "religion" of each and every person no matter how non- or anti-religious. In other terms, "worldview." It is more intellectually honest with oneself and others to be open and upfront about one's own valuations and starting assumptions than to simply pretend not to be operating on any.
@@dannydacheedo1592 True. What matters is that some people believe in a supernatural force or philosophical idea that advocates for harm against other people. Some even fake religions that at their base are anti-hate. For example his is why the KKK hate the guts of the Catholic Church. It stood up against them. Another example would be modern political ideologies. What I don't get is how can some people not realise they are against their own ideas, like contemporary social-liberal leftism. You claim to be anti-racist and for freedom for everyone, but hate white people (yourself for most) and any other group that simply just calls you out. I know that in the human spirit there is an "Us vs Them" mentality, but so many years of evolution just for us to still fight.
@@SepticFuddyah yes the transcendental argument. Honestly I have yet to see any atheist or empiricist be able to defeat it without directly relying upon it or a fallacy
Hey TIK, great video! There is one thing I'd recommend you read it's an essay by Michael Huemer entitled "Why I am not an Objectivist", he's a philosophy professor in Colorado who also happens to be an ancap and he takes Objectivism seriously (no straw-man critiques). The truth of the matter is that Ayn Rand's philosophy does have some problems and while most philosophers like Hegel are clearly off their rocker they're also wrestling with issues that Objectivism does not really address. Hope you see this, as a former Objectivist myself that essay made me realise how deep the philosophical rabbit-hole really goes
@@HoraceWah-pole-ry4qk To be honest I feel I haven't done enough research to give you a definitive answer, so far I lean towards American Pragmatism, but especially the later ones have some opinions I consider bafflingly stupid. So I wouldn't say I'm an adherent of any particular philosophy yet.
re Objectivism's deficiencies (especially its cultish intolerance and intellectual intimidation tactics, akin to Maoist "struggle sessions"): Consider this (poor quality) video of Murray Rothbard's one act play "Mozart Was A Red", produced by the Mises Institute in the '80s: . th-cam.com/video/tuSodwE4q6s/w-d-xo.html
@@Feingeist01 Interesting, I used to be a pragmatist myself but I couldn't hold with the fallacies by William James and Peirce's pragmaticism was too science-focused. I think I know who the later opinion, Richard Rorty. The man is a nut.
I need to look more into Objectivism more, but it has always been clear to me that most if the hate for Rand is due to: A. Most of her critics being left leaning. and B. Everyone else hates her, she must be bad. Here's a bad quote or recording of her, that's enough for me! I say this because there was a meme someone made with Marx and Rand, all criticism was of Rand - Marx took virtually no heat. I have also asked people why they hate Rand or found their opinions and all of them were excruciatingly lacking in any detail or demonstration of what she actually believes. Again, I should look more into her - but even if wrong, she is clearly misrepresented.
Immanuel Kant was not trying to save religion from science, he was trying to save religion and science from skepticism, specifically David Hume's skepticism.
He was unable to without some sort of personalized transcendental force. Kinda funny how science and skepticism relies upon Christianity and other faith based ideologies to justify itself.
@@prestonjennings6277 It is not correct that science relies on Christianity or any other faith based impulse or doctrine. Skepticism is just bad philosophy and can never be justified by any means whatsoever.
Praxeology is not mysticism. Praxeology is the art of applying deductive reasoning to human action. It is essentially formal logic applied to individuals and incentives. Simply sharing a broadly used academic term with Kant does not mean the Austrians are essentially religious. Many are, but "Austrian Economics" and its political implications are based entirely on reason. If you believe that the reasoning is flawed, then fine, but asserting that having read and shared the basis for a theory with someone who believed in mystic mumbo jumbo means you are somehow infected with mysticism is nonsense. That would be akin to saying someone is a crypto-Christian because they believe in sharing. Other than that, great video. I appreciate you having the balls to admit your understanding of statist movements has grown. It would have been nice to see Neocons and Neolibs linked to their respective camps, though.
"Many are, but "Austrian Economics" and its political implications are based entirely on reason." Well, that's not good. If it's not evidence-based, then it can easily become detached from reality, which is what I was getting at.
@@TheImperatorKnightThere's no evidence in human action, sociology and economics are not science, contrary to what wikipedia says. You can only deduce when it comes to human nature, similiar to mathematics. Do we reject mathematics because it's not "evidence based"? (empiricism based)
@@TheImperatorKnight You can easily say the same thing about other logic-based pursuits like mathematics. However, I do think this may have legs and after learning from you for years now, I'm certainly open to having my mind changed as this wouldn't be the first time. My only gripe here is that Austrians do use models. It's not all "Theory of Marginal Utility" this and "Economic Calculation Problem" that. What do you propose they're missing?
So is there a notable difference between praxeology and Praxis? As I understood, Praxis specifically relates to applying theory and action according to a Critical (Marxist) set of ethics and analysis.
@@baph0met Mathematics, whilst abstracted in how it is used is evidence based since it follows strict logic which can be represented and reproduced in the real world. You can count 4 sheep, and if you so choose to have the same number of sheep included to the existing sheep you will have 8 sheep, not 7 or 9.
Come to think of it, French Revolution was never mentioned in this entire thing which is subtly surprising to me honestly, given how many people seem to view that as the origin of many different political ideas (at least on the continent, after all, the American Revolution predates it by a few years, which people forget).
Wow! Thank you for this. I have mentally been doing a similar mapping, but mine is not nearly as complete, and I never actually put them into a visual representation like you have done. This is really great. I would only have a quibble with Ayn Rand having been influenced by Thomas Aquinas. While she has admiration of him, she clearly gets her ideas directly from Aristotle, and only mentions Aquinas historically. She never references any ideas of Aquinas that I can see, and she was not of any religion, or school that derived from Aquinas either. Her references to Aristotle are legion though. Again. Thank you for doing this. I just discovered your videos here, so I will be going over them as I can.
Another tour de force. In particular, good that you picked up on the primacy of the ideal per Plato in Mises' emphasis on deductive reasoning from a small set of axiomatic principles. I would say the big difference between Plato and Aristotle is Aristotle's belief in the trustworthiness of the senses, so that observation and experiment are valid sources of knowledge. The latter - the scientific method - is the better dividing line between mysticism and reason, than merely rejecting assertions because they are religious.
This a completely wrong approach to history of ideas, intellectual history or even history of ideologies. Ideas, ideologies and intellectuals are not product of single lines of development. They are more like knots of networks. Ideologies are not a unified body, they are agglomerates of different and even contradictory ideas from the past and the present. Ideologies are not closed, they are open and in constant transformation to adapt to the changing present social, economic and political conditions.
This is a high level overview, emphasizing the connections and evolution of ideas. It is NOT intended to be a complete and comprehensive work on the subject, which would likely be a multi-volume work.
@@kenhoganson9481 Not a reason to spend 10 minutes talking about occultists and skipping Schopenhauer and the whole liberal branch of the map, only mentioning bloody Ayn Rand of all people in the last few minutes of the video.
@@Solaire_au_Frohmage A pretty good reason actually. This wasn't intended as the kind of work you expected apparently. Nevertheless, he added some pinned clarifications.
@@gThomasHagg Brother, explain to me, what kind of work it is supposed to be then? Why specific philosophers or ideologists were completely taken out of the picture or skipped, while half the video was spent on rose-cross order, occultists and comparing every single "modern" ideology he (the author) doesn't associate with to Hitler/Nazism?
I think I would love to see you make a video on J. Krishnamurti, his relationship to the Theosophical society, the impact it had on his message, and whether or not he successfully does what he claims, which is denouncing all ideological influence and to be "unconditionally free" from any human conditioning, and whether or not there exists any philosophical parallel.
I believe that we should start with the current state of the ideology, namely Evola. After TIK has grounded us in the current state of it, he can start work on Freemasonry.
Masonry is the Mother of Subversive Religions. It's members have been starting wacky cults like Scientology or Heavens Gate or Theosophy or Mormons or Wokeism and even Marxism for CENTURIES. Aeons! In the ancient world the story is the same. Look at the Sabbattean Frankists. Their members go on to found B'nai B'rith, the ADL, and the SPLC. All under the umbrella of the Templar Scottish Rite Network.
@thatman8490 - NSDAP racial theories made much of its ideology contradictory, such as the Freemason connection that TIK demonstrated and the nazi belief that Freemasonry, Capitalism and Bolshevism were all Jewish plots to Germany's detriment
The freemasons are secretive, any many of those who have written on them are schizophrenic, the most interesting angle would probably be the Catholic one as the two organisations have been in an underground war for centuries, however access to that information might be more difficult considering that liberals have pretty thoroughly infiltrated the Church at this point, it seems as though freemasons were involved in Vatican II even. It is historically accepted that they were important in the American and French Revolution, Whig politics, the political instability in Tsarist Russia, the 1848 uprisings and similar liberal revolutions, the Carlist wars and the Greek war of independence (which they started, helpfully wreaking long term Russian ambitions and leading to horrific reprisals against Greeks in Anatolia and other parts of the Ottoman empire, and eventual ethnic cleaning, not that the Ottomans didn't try even at the time, with an Egyptian army seeming to have the intention of enslaving the Greeks and colonizing Greece). Unsurprisingly not the nicest bunch, but they sure got around.
Yeah he should either state the nature of the relationship in the map like compounding/contributive & diametrical or oppositional relations which granted would increase the Map's complexity by a lot but it would clear up such "confusions" Or use the historical relations to connect the evolution of the discourse & ideas, so a statement ,"enlightenment philosophers sought separate man from religion on the basis of derivation of Christian teachings", now realistically that statement has a LOT wrong but it also eatablishes a relationship thus connecting secular thinkers with Christians & establishing a separation with that same relation which may be pretty much impossible with a line chart map, history of philosophy & political philosophy is a lot more complicated than a line to a point!
You really don't do justice to Kant (which is understandable if you haven't read him, especially Critique of Pure Reason). His entire project was actually bridging the gap between rationalism and empyricism, two equally compelling but somewhat contradictory currents of philosophy. He was not influenced directly by Plato, as you've drawn (of course he was influenced in some ways and in some ways replicated Plato's idealism), but rather by more contemporary philosophers: Decartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, Lock, etc. Also there's little if any mysticism to be found in him, rather, he single-handedly destroyed all pretentions to mysticism by banishing concepts like God and Free Will to the realm of Noumenon, a thing-in-itself (or the world-in-itself, the world as it truly is beyond our phenomenological perception of it), which humans have absolutely no access to and are only able to speculate and believe in, but never truly know. Also, in many ways Kant can be seen as a progenitor of Neuro-science, since he's likely the first to try to fully dissect and categorize the process of human cognition and thinking, albeit in logical, not empyrical terms. Hegel took some Kant's ideas, mostly his dialectic, turned it upside down, and discarded Kant's most valuable assertions on the limits of human mind in order to once again engage in mystical rationalist thinking: basically pretending to be able to deduce the mind of God. Kant must not have been pleased with him, as was Kant's most faithful intellectual descendant, Arthur Schopenhauer, who hated and criticized Hegel with great passion. If there was one philosophy book that's essential to read for everyone, regardless of ideology, Critique of Pure Reason must be it (if you can handle it's extremely complex and detailed logic). It's both enlightening and humbling, forever burying any grandiose pretentions that you, as a human being, can know everything about everything.
Inventing the Noumenon just reinvented the mystical. If he wanted to save religion from Newton, well, he succeeded. Perhaps beyond his wildest imaginings.
@@PaulthePhilosopher2 And yet, out modern science operates on this same presupposition that we do not have direct access to the "real" world, or "the truth", only to sensory data, and we construct models about how the phenomenological world works, that are not "True", but merely predictive and "good enough" until future experiments and findings will disprove our model. The Noumenon is simply saying: Who Knows, what the world in itself really is, we have zero access to it in principle. The very definition of "Mystic" is directly opposite to this - having certain, innate knowledge about the true nature of the world, God, Soul, etc., you name it. Had you read Kant, you must have understood this point clearly. He spends a good portion of his Critique refuting all arguments for God's existence and logically proving the impossibility to either prove or disprove God. Kant reduced metaphysics and ontology to mere questionmarks. After Kant you can still "Believe" to have some direct knowledge of God or whatnot, but you can never claim to have "proved" anything relating to ontology.
@@PaulthePhilosopher2 There's nothing mystical at all about the concept of Noumenon. On the contrary, it's directly anti-mystical, saying we can NEVER directly access and know the world as it really is, or God, or The Soul, or Free Will, we can not know anything at all beyond the phenomenological world or the content of our own mind.
@@spectralisation It is a reinvention of the mystery cult. Asserting that the unknowable exists, that is it. That is the trick. If instead Kant asserted that all which exists is knowable and that unknowable implies nonexistent that would be truly anti-mystical. But Kant set aside a place for religion to hide.
@@PaulthePhilosopher2 Claiming that all that exists is directly knowable would be delusional. Unless you limit the realm of existence only to observable phaenomena, which would in turn generate a problem about where all this observable universe stems from, and attempting to answer it through physics alone will lead us to infinite regression, discovering or inventing smaller and smaller elementary particles until we inevitably move our theories beyond the realm of measurable empyrical data.. which is exactly what happened with physic in the last century! No serious physicist today would argue that we can, even in principle, obseve and gather data on everything that exists, but claiming that something doesn't exist at all merely by virtue of us not being able to experience it, would be... beyond delusional, it's a straight path to total solipsism. Out of sight, out of mind and out of existence.
also, Proto-Indo-Europeans had little influence over ancient Middle-Eastern religions - those were much older, like the Sumerian myths which later influenced Babilon and thus all Semitic beliefs. And you also had Egypt. Ancient Egypt probably had the most influence over Greek pre-Socratic philosophy.
_Nature Magazine_ said that the DNA taken from pharaohs at the time of Exodus comes from the Levant (Palestine) area. There was a large Red Sea slave trade at the time...
Yes the opening was quite disappointing. A historian should know better. "Proto-Indo-European" is not a documented historical fact. It is just one pre-historical hypothesis, an educated guess, conducted from circumstantial evidence. And it was cooked up only couple hundred years ago for identity political narrative.. The historical fact is that there is no evidence of so called Indo-European languages before classical Iron Age. Even Hittite is only first recorded ca 1400 BC. And Hittite does not even fit to the reconstructed "Indo-European" proto-language. Which sort puts question to the validity of the whole "Proto-Indo-European" hypothesis.
BTW, the scholars who created the "legend of Proto-Indo-Europeans were Christian creationist s by upbringing , they believed they were descendants of sons of Noah and Adam. Thus the legend of Proto-Indo-Europeans is an Abrahamic Judeo-Semitic philosophical construction - an Urvolk that wanders from an Urheimat like the Children of Israel
We know that the Germans, Slavs, Huns, and Scandinavians came from Central Asia. We know that higher caste Indians, the ancestors of the Kurds and Afghans also came from Central Asia. The Turks and even Persians also have genetic links. The Turks even have genetic links to Koreans and Mongols. We have to assume a lot of Asia and parts of Europe are distantly related to each other because historically it's documented that they all came from the Central Asian Steppes and genetic testing is giving surprising links. According to DNA testing, the Franks and Chinese split off from each other more recently than some groups of Africans who are well known to have been isolated from each other. Using DNA testing scientists traced the migration of ancient groups of Amerindians from Central China around the Yellow River Valley to Argentina. The Indo-European theory still has some credibility simply because Asia was once filled with small nomadic ethnic groups of hunter-gatherers and pastoralists. Large groups, especially if they had more advanced military technologies were dominant until they stopped being militarily dominant and then they migrated or disappeared from the record.
Dionysus wasn't merely a god of festival and wine. He is the god of the old world. A remnant of earth goddess, nature cult. He is the antithesis of Apollonic idealism. He represents the cyclical natural phenomenons like life and death and seasonality. He was an outsider god in Greek mythology, he was a symbol of what's left from earlier human believes. When men begin to put ideas before natural reality, their beliefs evolved to more abstract ideas about life and death. Dionysus degrades into something simple as wine.
@@lights473False, neo-platonism was merely an influence on some Christian scholars, notably Augustine, but certainly not the basis. Fundamentally, Christianity rejects Platonic forms and the "One" as monistic heresy, opting instead for a transcendental answer to the One-and-Many question - The Triune God.
@@lights473 sure he did...3 centuries after the creation of Christianity. He was the first example of retrocausality? Perhaps a refresher is in order. Christianity begins in Judea around 33 AD. It an outgrowth from Judiasm which has existed since around 1300 BC or so. So sure, some guy from the 200s AD "created" Christianity, not all those documented people from the period 33 to 90 AD. In addition, Plotinus is COMPLETELY unknown to the church that he "created"--to the point that no one had heard of him at all prior to the 19th century AD. Even Augustine, who was known, was not much of an influence outside the Roman Church which replaced him with Aquinas in the 13th century. In fact, Augustine is a point of deflection from which the Eastern and Western churches begin their schism.
I have been thinking recently that politics is more a tree than a line or graph. This is _much_ better than the political spectrum. As an aside, I think it _could_ be valuable doing a version where you show lines like those between Aristotle and Plato, with a different color line maybe, to help more fully categorize. I also think in the longterm it might be valuable to explain what ideas were taken in each line.
Man, this is great. Love the channel. I’ve read some great books recently as a result of finding Tik. Most recently was The cause of Hitlers Germany by Peikoff. That book made me go back to my copy of Philosophy who needs it by Rand. Good stuff.
Sorry if this is redundant, i couldn't go through all the comments. Great video, my only small criticism would be that you left off the French Fascists/Syndacalists. Guys like George Sorel were instrumental in the development of Italian Fascism
The line from Ayn Rand to Empiricism seems thin at best. It seems to be more towards Aquinas and certainly Aristotle and there are definite links to Classical Liberalism as well. Libertarianism seems to get its influences from Ayn Rand and not only through von Mises. With Empiricism also tied to Kant (father of modern philosophy), this also adds to the reasoning of Rand not tied to Empiricism. Evola would be an interesting one to get into more. How these seemingly dissimilar streams get tied together in 3rd Positionism. Could btw be since both had Kant influences.
I appreciate very much the fact that you put your references explicitly below of what you are immediately talking about, instead of compiling a bunch of disorganized names in your description.
I do think you're right about Austrian economics missing something. Their methods are interesting and useful to an extent, but their greatest asset is also their fundamental flaw: the reliance on human reasoning. If the reasoning does not account for ALL economic factors, then it can come out to an incorrect conclusion. That's why it's better suited to the role of historical economic analysis, but they have a hard time making predictions.
If we want to go back everything starts with Animism, the idea that everything had an anima or soul just like humans...rocks, the ocean, the sun, fire, etc.
Other way around. Baruch and Daniel (Hebrew Prophets) influenced the Persian empire to turn from pagan fallen angel worship to worshiping the God of Israel. Who is the maker of all things. However Haman and other evil people corrupted the religion and kicked out the Parthians who later became the barbarian tribes and also the Scythian tartars.
It would be interesting to know about conservativism, like the Tories in UK or the Christian Democracy in the Continent or the Republican Party in the US. This series about politics is amazing! I love it!
Modern conservatism in the USA is only 5 years old. The Democrats called anyone who agreed with them liberals and anyone who didn't conservatives. The British have been using those names for centuries.
Modern conservatism in the USA is only 5 years old. A certain group of people called anyone who agreed with them liberals and anyone who didn't conservatives. This obviously caused a lot of confusion and controversy in the USA. The problem is once the political parties latch onto an idea, it's really hard to get them to stop calling each other by those terms no matter how nonfactual and ridiculous. The British have been using those names for centuries.
The last time the Republican Party of the US. had an idea was when it came out against slavery. It has been complacently reacting to events ever since.
This is like a first year student of a degree of philosophy trying to grasp a bit of everything without having any idea at all. You can't connect the peices of the puzzle without learning about their proper shape. Do not make divugation until you have some knowledge to teach. You are responsible of that as a content creator with such a big audience
I would love to see something more in-depth on conservatism, notably, you said Objectivism is the only ideology on the map that isn't mystical, but it appears Edmund Burke's conservatism on this map also does not pull from Kant or those before him. As we know, conservatism did not necessarily start or end with Burke, but it would definitely be a bit complicated to get into influences like Fortescue, Hooker, Coke, Selden, Hale, and Blackstone, and I understand why you can't fully flesh that out in a video like this. Also I would argue that John Locke definitely influences some modern political parties, especially in the Anglo sphere, like the Democrats and at times the Republicans. Both were primarily liberal parties in the past since the end of World War II and it is only recently that the Republicans have gone in a more conservative direction (nation-states, protectionism, non-interventionism) and the Democrats have gone in a more Marxist direction. I highly, highly recommend you read the book "Conservatism: A Rediscovery" by Yoram Hazony. It completely fleshes out how Conservatism differs from liberalism. I could imagine it might be a little offensive to your more liberal/libertarian/agnostic/anti-statist sensibilities though, so it would need to be read with an open mind (you read tons of things you disagree with so this shouldn't be an issue anyway). Also the author is very Jewish (and was born in America, moved to Israel) so he does occasionally over-weigh the Jewish influence on Anglo-Conservative thought a little more than he should, especially compared to Christianity, but just something to keep in mind. Edit: Also as you mentioned at the end, Rousseau didn't come up in your research but it would be interesting to see how he influenced modern ideologies as well, and notably how he influenced the French Revolution. His ideas about breaking the chains of responsibility to other humans definitely have carried forward into our increasingly atomized and individualistic world.
Ayn Rand stated that things where not better for being old or new, she didn't focused on nostalgia/conservatism or futurism/progressivism but in which was the best political system for men, as Chesterton said: the eternal men.
Here's a quick hotfix (version 001.01) that corrects a few of the more obvious mistakes in the original map and timeline drive.google.com/file/d/1lHY2Q4Kpmy63Pzpz0Imhb5dfndKl9YQy/view?usp=sharing
And yes, I intend to update and improve this timeline map as I continue to work on these topics 👍
The most obvious mistake in the video is that Plotinus was not a Christian. Thank you to those pointing that out.
Please don't use AI art, looks awful
Cool map, would be nice to see the other political ideologies plotted this way. It gives such a good view where some thoughts come from.
@@Poedersuiker this would destroy the map xd maybe more maps
You absolutely should spend 10 minutes reading the "new economic policy" of Lenin. That's the birth of fascism as economic model.
You should also account that, as dialectic, in Lenin's mouth, "free market" doesn't means "free", or "market", "private property" doesn't means "private" or "property", and running state companies "for profit", doesnt means "for profit".
@@hoi4enjoyer284 I only think there is a lot more influenced by the current left side of the map. But it will be massive yes
the video is good, but there are a few points that are worth adding or correcting:
Firstly, Plotinus was not a Christian, he was a pagan, but some of his students were Christians and ended up influencing early Christianity. It's important to define this because the relationship between Christianity and Platonist philosophy changes depending on the period.
Secondly, Plotinus didn't just disagree with some Gnostics, his thought was incompatible with any Gnostic strand. Gnosticism is based on dualism, the idea that matter and soul are completely separate. Neoplatonism has its main thesis in the idea of monism, that the physical world and the world of ideas coexist and are not separate.
Thirdly, as important as Saint Thomas Aquinas was for the development of Western thought, to associate the Renaissance as a sequence of his thought is absurd. Historically, the renaissance occurred through the reintroduction of Neoplatonist thought in the West, especially by the Greek philosopher Gemistos Plethon, who was an influence on the creation of the Platonist academy in Florence.
Fourthly, Kant did not revive Platonism, because the philosophical current never died.
Fifthly, Nietzsche was not a hermetic, his thinking was based on biology and materialism, far removed from any dualist theory. His greatest influence, apart from Schopenhauer, whom he sought to surpass, was Heraclitus, who was also not a dualist.
Sixthly, although Giovane Gentile was an important fascist intellectual, it makes much more sense to trace the political origins of fascism to Georges Sorel's national syndicalist movement.
Seventh, as much as the video identifies the origins of the mystical aspects of Nazism, it fails to identify its political origins which are unknown even to the people who propagate these ideas. National socialism is an Austrian ideology developed by several individuals, but primarily by a man called Rudolf Jung, who was responsible for giving the ideology its theoretical body, in his main work “Der Nationale Sozialismus: Seine Grundlagen, Sein Werdegang, und Seine Ziele”, or “National Socialism: its Foundations, its Development, and its Goals”, which was published in 1919. I've always been fascinated by the fact that people discuss national socialism so much, but few people are able to pinpoint the creator of the ideology (Jung himself considered himself the Marx of national socialism).
Eighthly, Julius Evola was never of the third position, Evola was a reactionary with various mystical influences, he was always critical of the political aspects of fascism and national socialism, but this association exists in people's minds because he already praised mystical ideas that existed specifically in the SS. He didn't approve of national socialism because he saw it as a plebeian and anti-aristocratic movement, but he saw something of value in the SS, as conservative and noble. He even has a book called “Fascism seen from the right” in which he criticizes fascism for being a revolutionary and nationalist ideology derived from the French extreme left. Associating evola with the third position is wrong, but there are people who take inspiration from some of evola's positions, but this is generally the meme ideology of the dissident internet right, which associates antogonistic thinkers (it's a question of vibes, not ideology).
The video is good, but as the subjects covered are obscure by nature, it ends up creating some meaningless and superficial associations, connecting things that should be more separate (as in the case of the renaissance), or ignoring fundamental pieces (such as Sorel and Rudulf Jung). Despite this, the video is a great starting point to discuss these topics.
Thank you for your response. I agree that the subjects covered are obscure by nature, and it does appear you know a lot about these subjects. Here's a partial reply:
1) Yes, this was a mistake. I pinned a comment stating this.
6) Giovanni Gentile was the philosophical founder of Fascism. So Fascism was National Syndicalism with the philosophy of Actualism (Actual Idealism). Thus, Gentile was responsible for the Actualism. Sorel would be responsible for the Syndicalism part. In the updated video I will do on this in the future (once I've done a lot more reading), I'll hopefull remember to include him.
7) I've never heard of Rudolf Jung until now. Thank you, and I'll have a look at what he said.
8) I don't know if I agree with you. The modern Third Positionists are all over Evola. And as you said, he was inspired by what the National Socialists were on about. Perhaps it would be better to say he was Third Positionist-adjacent?
@@TheImperatorKnightThis is why I like following this channel. Provoking thought, smart courtious audience and TIK is always such a sweetheart.
Glad you brought up Evola. People tend to overreact whenever he's brought up, instead of actually engaging with what he wrote about.
very good comment especially pointing sorel, who really was behind fascism
😊!
Remember, TIK did not killed himself.
-ed is not needed.
Get ahold of yourself
@@barsukascool english is not my first langauge - its polish.
We’ll see about that
He did not say anything that would get him killed. The people that do get deplatformed or the algorithm destroys their channels.
This video is a very good example of how an idealistic history of ideas and oversimplification thought can lead to a bizarre distortion of reality. Congratulations for this good job.
Yes. It had to be said. This is so wrong and without knowsledge, my god...
But what about the nonrealist quantum mechanics?
I was thinking the exact same thing
While TIKs selfdescription literally is:
"TIKhistory is a TH-camr who creates detailed and accurate historical documentaries 🤡 that aim to put TV documentaries to shame (which usually have several fact checkers, TIK might profit from). […] TIK seeks to dispel the myths and distortions of the past so that we can learn from it and not make the same mistakes again.“ … like being syncretic? Thank you TIK, that you „dispel the myths and distortions of the past“, by reproducing them in your own video.
Care to elaborate?
This map incredibly ignores all the French Enlightenment thinkers, such as Voltaire, Montesquieu, Rousseau and I don't know why. The importance of French Enlightenment thinkers is unquestionable, they have a great influence impact on modern liberalism. For example, Rawls' political philosophy is directly originated from Russel, Rawls himself calls his philosophy new Social Contract Theory. And Rawls has influenced almost all contemporary political thinkers, such as Nozick.
What is more important is that French Enlightenment thinkers really have a HUGE influence on Hegel and Marx. Just have a look at Phenomenology of Spirit by Hegel or The Capital by Marx and you will find a lot of passages talking about the Enlightenment, liberty and the French Revolution. Hegel gave the highest praise to the French Revolution throughout his life, believing that it opened a new stage in human history.
Also, the neglection of French Enlightenment thinkers let the author failed to reveal the linkage between Thomas Aquinas and Hegel-Marx branch. Many scholars nowadays have notice this linkage. The idea of chosen people and abandoned people by Aquinas evolved to Rousseau's idea about the morally upright and the morally corrupt and then to Leninism of progressivism and reactionism.
This map have neglected the post-war European thinkers like Heidegger and Sartre. Due to space limitations, I will not list them one by one. In a word, the author didn't write the relation between Enlightenment movement, liberalism and Marxism. If the author had noticed this, then there would be as much reason to conclude neo-liberalism and left-wing has the same origination as that between left-wing and Fascism. In addition, the French-German tradition was fully covered and this makes me dissatisfied with this video. I hope the author will make a progress in the foreseeable future.
not just enlightenment and post-modern french philosophers, he also neglect the whole modern era, starting with Bacon which developed the Rationalist and Empiricists etc that are directly responsible for the enlightenment and all modern ethics, democracy and science. Which are still relevant today, unlike these extreme ideologies like Nazism, fascism or Communism, which only a minority holds in belief today(at least in their totality)
Similarly, Liberalism and Conservatism can't really be explained without unpacking the English Enlightenment in the context of the Napoleonic Wars shaping views about Locke, Paine and Home (and yes, I know he was Scottish).
The French? They still around... well if they are not for long😂(this is backed by data) y'all are done for not many French left and it will keep moving in that direction
Surrender surrender surrender
anything like this would have to be very reductionistic and exclusionist
I wish he would have said something about why he chose the thinkers he did, because if its just to prove a point then it's not very convincing
I also very much doubt that you can't trace Hegel to Hitler, I feel like he did not even try
Yes, the sheer bulk of rationalistic thought will still not save Plato from the ultimate consequences of Aristotle’s initiation of egoism, individualism, and individual rights. I call it the “Octopus defense”: blinding ink.
Freemasonry is something I'd really like to see covered. You hear so much about them through history, but so few documentaries. I cannot remember a single BBC documentary about them.
@@NDV3355 we want to know what the 33rd degree folks believe, not the lower ranks
Masonry is a tricky topic since there's competing orders and it's often very hard to figure out what order a certain text or idea belongs too. On one hand you have the Free Masons who built America as the biggest experiment in freedom and personal liberty in human history, and then you have the masonic order that helped egg on the French revolution. These are of course VERY different orders. And annoyingly, most of the primary source documents from centuries ago didn't know the difference between these orders. The Catholic Inquisition for instance was mostly dealing with the gnostic splinter Rites and their ban of Masonry was because of those groups, not the Scottish order in the then British Empire that didn't exactly allow the Catholic Church in like the French or Spanish kings did. So you'll find primary source documents from the Church that just represents ONE splinter of the Masons, not all of them. Modern documents and attempts at filling in the history are plagued with biased authors because, unsurprisingly centuries of propaganda for and against the Masons has skewed peoples opinions. Plus the secrecy that was just a built in part of all the orders has made it so you have to be obsessed with and almost certainly opinionated about the Masons to even bother digging. All of that has made it's really hard to find any objective source on the subject.
The only qualifications required are that you do not have a criminal record and that you believe in a "Supreme Being" and, all of the major faiths are represented. Matters of politics and religion are never discussed for the harmony of a Lodge. If you fit the aforementioned criteria and are aged 21 years or older you can join. All you need to do is find a local lodge and ask.... Try Google...
@@NDV3355 do you guys do actual masonry?
Bill Cooper's 43 episodes of MYSTERY Babylon are the best starting point for those who want to know what the Lodge is really up to. I have all 43 eps on a playlist on my YT channel.
Connection from Hegel to Nietzsche through Feuerbach was crazy.
Some people already mentioned in comments but without Schopenhauer you cannot get to Nietzsche. Schopenhauer was influenced quite a bit by Kant but stands complete opposite to the Hegelians or other post-Kantians for that matter. Nietzsche also was influenced by Schopenhauer in a similar manner but eventually stands slightly opposite to him while criticizing Kant heavily throughout his works. You cannot even find slight mention of Hegel in his works, surprising for a German philosopher of his time. Anyone who wants to make the connection simply does through the urge to connect all contemporary German philosophers to Hegel, either in support or in opposition to him.
There are occasional mentions of Hegel in Nietzsche, e.g. Beyond Good and Evil 204, but also elsewhere.
The author is using an AI summary of wiki pages that contain the word ideology, wtf do you expect, an actual sane analysis?
Hegel is strongly overrated. 🎉
Hegel is strongly overrated. 🎉
He spreads propaganda about Nietzsche being Hegelian so he can justify his bullshit about Fascism being closer to Marxism than Nazism.
I'd love to see an updated version of this in a few years.
That's my plan - gather more and more sources and information on these people (and more), then do an updated one.
Here's a quick hotfix (version 001.01) that corrects a few of the more obvious mistakes in the original map and timeline drive.google.com/file/d/1lHY2Q4Kpmy63Pzpz0Imhb5dfndKl9YQy/view?usp=sharing
@@TheImperatorKnight it would be cool if you could place John M Keynes, Milton Friedman & Thomas Sowell in there
The fifteen-twenty year update should be good one,
a whole column of western wannabe dictators and tyrants spawned in this decade!
@@TheImperatorKnight Are you familiar with The Great Books of the Western World by The University of Chicago and Encyclopedia Brittanica? It’s an encyclopedia series lead by Mortimer Adler and has two volumes called the Synopticon that outlines themes throughout the collected works. I think it’s is a useful tool to help review the lineages you have drawn yourself in this video. It also helps to shed light on how complex and multifaceted modern ideologies are in relation to their origins across history. Someone like Freud developed his ideas from multiple angles that are hard to understand their shared relationships.
I have had this very conversation a few days ago.
A map like this with the connections of the religions overlaid with this ideological map would be rather interesting to see.
Thank you, your work is very good.
How you miss the entire French Revolution in a history of ideology is astounding
to be fair hes talking people & ideas not groups and the french revolution was a short time in history- 10yrs ? - in which philosophers ideas influenced
@@malcolm-danielfreeman5940 There's no a single mention of human rights which is the foundation text the West is based off of this is pure insanity.
5:06
This is an inaccurate and surface-level jab against Epicurus. He was not a hedonist, nor were any of his students. Like many contemporary philosophers, he and his school advocated for a simple life.
If I had a critique, you once noted the importance of keeping things in chronological order. The map itself is pairing people on a vertical axis that are not paired in time. Marx and Gentile on the same axis, Marx and Darwin not on the same axis (or close to it).
The entrance and circulation of their ideas concurrently, or successively, alters the zeitgeist and how it develops.
Yes, this was because I fell behind with this video. I was hoping to get it out last week, but piecing it all together, recording it and editing it took WAY longer than expected. It was a case of "don't get it right, get it done". I think I'll be doing a follow-up once I've covered a few more relevant topics, at which point I'll add to it, put the times on it, and just do a better job overall.
To improve or correct, create a timeline on the horizontal. Use a background box around the authors pictures and names to show the active time span of their work/life.
@@DogmaticAtheist
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
@@TheImperatorKnightDude, think you missed something: Rothbard was influenced was Mises but he mixes Mises and Aquinas. Not many people give Kant credit but he’s not far from Aquinas. Remember, Austrians are apriorical and that’s how Aquinas found his 4 thesis. Peace and keep going, I’d superchat if you had the button!
Friedrich Hayek should be added somewhere in here.
Hayek studied under Mises but deviated away because he didn't believe in social planning, but wasn't a pure objectivist like Rand. He was a skeptic that favored individual liberty. Hayek admired Kant's emphasis on the limits of human reason, paralleling his arguments about dispersed knowledge and the unpredictability of complex systems. Burke’s emphasis on tradition and the limits of rationality shaped Hayek’s appreciation for societal evolution over engineered solutions. David Hume and Adam Smith's concepts of spontaneous order and skepticism of centralized authority profoundly resonated with Hayek’s views on individual liberty and the self-regulating nature of markets. While not explicitly cited by Hayek, I'm sure the founding fathers of the US influenced him too. Their principles of limited government, checks and balances, and individual rights likely aligned with and reinforced his advocacy for liberty and skepticism of central authority.
I 'm surprised Starmer hasn't come for you yet mate!
If I had a business, I’d petition Mr.TIK to come to the States on an H1B visa. The UK doesn’t have the yarbles to send redcoats over to extradite on hate speech grounds.
Oh he is coming alright
@@barzillaiconcorde685 he actually is not
@@LeonardTicsay if you're going to go through all the trouble of moving, move to a freer country than the US.
StarmFuhrer
This is awesome, I sometimes try to explain to people the origins of certain ideologies, but it is a lot of different threads to tie in, having it all explained in one place is super useful
Reminds me of UsefulCharts videos
It reminds me of Redjac from Star Trek's _A Wolf in the Fold_ and egregores. From LotR "Sauron has regained much of his former strength. He cannot yet take physical form, but his spirit has lost none of its potency. "
Sorry to inform you but TIKHistory isn’t the most reliable source for cultivating your knowledge of the history of philosophy. His analysis is heavily influenced by his own political and ideological biases. I believe his goal is to exploit the ignorance of viewers who don’t have a strong grasp of the subjects he discusses
"I believe his goal is to exploit the ignorance of viewers who don’t have a strong grasp of the subjects he discusses"
I may not know everything, but my goal is not to exploit the ignorance of my viewers. I provide my sources for a reason - so people can double-check. Not only did I make mistakes in this video (e.g. Plotinus being Christian, because he wasn't), but my "ignorant" viewers pointed these out. Some of them know more than I do, and are helping me find more sources of information so I can learn more, and then give that knowledge to my audience. If I was lying, my audience would be the first to call me out.
My intention is not to mislead, and I'm not sure why you came to this conclusion. In the first minute or so, I even admit that some of my older statements in previous videos are now obsolete based on the knowledge I've discovered more recently. This is a continuous evolution on my part, and a building of knowledge over time.
@@Back2Me-q1y I don't pretend he is, I do reading of my own and have other sources of knowledge. I can't read everything though, I don't have the time or patience to do so, so it is helpful for someone to make a well-sourced video distilling what they have learned.
bro did all the mental gymnastics necessary to get f4scism and marxism grouped together
Yeah, let's thank our bro Hegel for doing all the work
@basementdweller6000 not my problem that you don't know what Marxism and f4scism are
@steeeeeeeeeebn lmao🤣
Oh no my ideology is bad 😢😢😢
Calling Nietzsche a Hegelian is like calling Hitler a Zionist.
Bro I was so confused when he said that
Hitler technically created modern day Israel.
I mean the Zionists are basically an einsatzgruppen reenactment group at this point
Hitler was a zionist lol
hilter actually was a zionist in the early 30s like most not sees
I saw your comment on Leonard Peikoff’s the History of philosophy lecture series, but I didn’t expect this.
I only made one comment that entire series, so the fact you saw it means you watched it all :)
I found out there was a follow-up series by Peikoff on the Modern History of Philosophy. It's not on TH-cam though, so I've linked to it in the description.
@@TheImperatorKnight thanks. I did not know there was a continuation.
@@TheImperatorKnight I've heard Peikoff's second course on Modern Philosophy. It's fantastic! Looking forward to your thoughts once you get through it.
@@TheImperatorKnight thank you, thank you, thank you for this find 🙏... and of course for all the other stuff that you do. Thanks!
Anyone that takes Peikoff or Ayn Rand seriously has never studied philosophy as an actual academic subject. They are not well regarded by genuine philosophers.
I hope you expand on this video with the academic vigour that you usually give us.
This is an opinion piece.
Enjoyable and I agree with you but this one needed more time.
I wasn't super interested in the video when I accidentally tapped on it, but being ready for bed, I decided to give it 5 minutes. I just reached the end. Very interesting illustration TIK!
As you learn, we learn with you. It is great to be able to track your thought development and hear your musings. Most importantly, you are willing to correct and amend your thinking.
Rousseau is absolutely key, he inverted the Christian moral system (sin is natural and virtue oppressive), stated that nature was good, wished to destroy social bonds and changed the meaning of freedom from freedom from the passions to freedom to do as you please. He created the utopian vision all left wing movements have been chasing ever since. When I talk to a left wing intellectual I hear Rousseau cited much more often than any other of these figures, Plato is old lamps for new, Rousseau is the future envisioned.
Damn, you are on to something! Of coarse, only someone so liberal that even his own party executes him could have created our modern ideologies. Because every Western ideology is eating itself. Did you figure this out?
Rousseau is HATED by the Rand Cultists . Because he believes in freedom and the state .
Yes, he influnced a lot of the anarchist movement, especially anarcho-primitivism, but even Rothbard.
He did not invert anything. There was always natural morality (rule of strong if you will) , and "civilized" morality trying to soften nature. Nietzsche described this as master and slave morality.
Gnosticism is the inversion of Judaism. I think this is why it is attacked on so many fronts
Shouldn't you include Adam Smith, John Stuart Mills, and the US founding fathers e.g. Thomas Jefferson Thomas Paine etc.?
Agree! In addition, add Jean-Jacques Rousseau ("Social Contract" that legitimate political authority comes from the consent of the governed), and Baron de Montesquieu (The "Spirit of the Laws" introduced the idea of the separation of powers within government into executive, legislative, and judicial branches). In addition, if you are citing Mises you really should include David Ricardo as well.
How do you mention those and not mention Locke. Who influenced most of them
Yeah there was a severe lack of liberalism in this
@@dharmatycoon Should have been titled something like "Where do our modern _Authoritarian_ ideologies come from?"
@@Remainsofaruineddeadcursed-d7t He did at least mention Locke, but as @dharmatycoon mentions there are few classic liberals besides him
You’ve shown me how interconnected economics is with history - they are practically inseparable which makes it so weird that they are never studied together in traditional education
That's what marxists do.
Bc if you knew that you'd not be a good slave
They used to be, at least until the 1970's, when I were a lad.
@@johnbruce2868 Really? That’s interesting, why would that change? I’m much younger so it has been separated ever since I’ve been alive.
By design. Harder to connect to the Dots, now national socialism can be rebranded.
Been a while since ive been this early. Absolutely love these type of videos I found your channel from a Professor who is an expert on communism and Marx as well as Ayn Rand. Professor Nikos . As well as Yaron Brook mentioned you on his show. Great content keep it ip
Nikos is the gigachad
@@radiozelaza he is the man! His Marx and Communism course is by far the best modern presentation on Marxism.
This is great, amazing to see all this done together. Thanks so much. This is stuff we really need to understand, even those who think their thinking is somehow unique and novel. Thanks for doing the hard work.
Rousseau is the one that started the idea of ''the noble savage'' and that society corrupts us. He is the french part of marx where Kant is his german part. Very influential in modern philosophy even if its indirectly.
Rousseau is the worse
I have read The Social Contract several times - it seems to me an extremely fair and rational explanation of the human condition and political structures. I see nothing there that suggests revolutionary violence, but I can see how others may have taken some of his ideas (out of context, as is often the way) and used them to justify their own political agenda. That “Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains” is an astute observation and what follows is a discussion of why this is so. You may disagree with everything Rousseau says in his discussion, but his initial observation remains the reality. How would you explain it?
@@alexandermukai7724how is man born free? First, I want to make it clear I'm no scholar nor have I read much of the books where these guys wrote about their ideas. But I recently heard this quote again and I couldn't disagree more. How come men are born free? It sure is an idea of certain appeal. But being realistic, man is born subject to so many limitations. Natural limitations of which I would blame no one in particular. To start with, you cannot even feed yourself. So you're totally dependant on somebody else. Be them your parents or somebody else. And that's only one of the many many limitations we have as individuals. So first of all why does he come up with that part of the quote? Probably he's got some idea in mind which I haven't got yet. Please tell me what you think he's trying to say there.
If I may try to speculate what he wanted to say, I'd say this (correct me if I'm wrong):
Man is free in his purest and most natural condition. But someone (society?) has put him in chains. Consequently he must rebel in order to attain his original freedom.
..
If so, I think it's not realistic at all. As I said we are all subject to gazillions of limitations. Most of them are result of natural conditions. And society or family or whoever we rely on are the ones that usually help us overcome those limitations. And therefore there's no need to rebel.
And his idea of primitive men being super wise and unpolluted is rather wrong.
@@gordonintendo What I understand Rousseau to be saying is that we are born into this world with the freedom to behave just as we wish towards ourselves and others. We are, though, social animals, with a certain intelligence that allows us to understand the consequences of our actions. This leads us to voluntarily limit our freedom, in the interest of ourselves and others. Our ‘chains’ are those of cultural customs and laws. For example, we have the freedom to kill anyone we wish, therefore anyone else has the freedom to kill us, if they wish. I’m sure that you would like not to be killed by someone else and therefore appreciate that you live in a society that has laws that prohibit murder and a system that punishes murderers. For you to receive the protection of the law, you yourself should adhere to the law - the law must apply equally to all [Rousseau discusses this point in his book, pointing out how the law can be misused, for example: the law that prohibits people from sleeping under the bridge applies equally to the rich man and the poor.] That we recognise the value of limiting our freedoms for the sake of the safety and security of ourselves, our family, our friends, our community and (in a truly mature and rational culture) all the people of the world, we therefore need to consider how we go about doing that. This is the basis of the Social Contract.
@@alexandermukai7724 I always make a distinction between good writing and good logic. Usually, rhetoric needs both because its aim is to convince you. Or, at least, to move you. It doesn't try to find the truth.
If you need truth the only option is logic and even that is not a guarantee and sometimes is ugly and requires high brain power. For example, how could I explain you the Schrodinger cat mental experiment when I don't have words for wave function collapse, only mathematics? And this problem is quite serious when it comes to explain the nature of reality.
On the other hand, Rousseau, Nietzsche, Cioran (yeah, I'm Romanian, I used to be a member of Romanian Communist Youth, UTC; I'm also a physicist - after the fall of communism in '89 I read a bit of those guys because I wanted a breath of mental sanity), all those guys are trying to impress, to look good. What they're doing is rhetoric. And Marx had no economic, psychological, or sociological studies. Heck, he would have needed all of them to write Das Kapital properly, because, obviously, he couldn't see the future.
So how about “Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains”? Well, does the man just walk away after he is born? No need for air, water, maternal milk and care or education? Ok, I understand Russeau wasn't a mother and he didn't remember his first steps, but a bit of external observation always helps to prevent someone from saying that. And about the second part, are you chains right now? Are those made of high-tensile carbon steel? Or maybe of gold. How about chains of dreams and desires? Or... "my chains are made of clouds kissing the morning leaves, tiny droplets of sun erasing nightmarish grieves"? Hmmm? Does that sound good? Well, I just made it up and I didn't want to say anything worthy, I simply wanted to sound good.
My point is “Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains” is open to debates and interpretations. It's not as straight as E=m*c^2. But so is the Bible. Metaphors, allegories, symbols, and so on. Umberto Eco's The Limits of Interpretations would be a good read, the guy is (was) a good writer himself (Name of the Rose, Foucault Pendulum), but also an academic studying and teaching semiology. I'm not saying J-J.Rouseau's ideas don't have merit, but most and foremost the guy is a very good writer, not a logician with specializations in psychology, sociobiology, and economy. He was a philosopher and a composer, no wonder he put a so strong accent on introspection and subjectivity.
The real problem is that other guys, read Hitler or Lenin, took some pages from him and turned them into propaganda. And thus propaganda became a science in its own right. At first, it was colored by ideological affinities, but no longer today. The antidote is critical thinking. Apply to Nietzsche the same advice he gives about religions and you'll how hollow he could sound. Because some human values make sense, the stories they use to encapsulate themselves have strong echoes within the soul. But. at the same time, one should take care of the feelings and sentiments that could carry their own logic and targets, which may not be the same as the logical arguments presented within the discourse or the underlying target of the whole discourse. Layers within layers...
Today I would not read Rousseau, or, for that matter, Cioran, Nietzsche or Marx, unless I want to taste a certain writing genre, or document their work and refer to that. But not for finding the truth or solutions to our contemporary problems.
Under the bottom line, if I'm permitted to become a bit philosophic, no, the Man is not born free because nothing comes into existence just simply like that, tabula rasa, one moment it isn't, the next, it exists and it always existed; the energy is conserved, the causality is a limiting thing. Time is a thing, DNA is a thing. And if the soul is a thing, then certainly it's blind to what happens when the man is being born. But some sort of chains do exist. Be they sociocultural chains, biological or purely physical chains; a Man has a mass; a Man has a measurably limited perception of space and time and retaining capacity. There is nothing to do about some of them. Absolutely nothing. What we can really do is realize that our chains are interlinked; we're not living in one-person caves. Through those sociocultural chains, we can act, I can agree with that. Not unshackle them, but act through them (in '89 we left behind a communist society; did we get unshackled from those communist chains? Nah, we, as humans, were still the same, more or less, brainwashed people). So, make ourselves, those around us, and society as a whole, better. I can agree with that and here's a huge discussion. But then there is no way I would put that in those words JJRouseau used...
Yes a Tik upload.
Good to see you're free.
With SirStarmer who marches in Feindesland I wasn't so sure.
Salut
why cant you all shut up
Great start mate. thank you for doing the work that your critics do not do.
8 minutes in and there is already a hours worth of content. wonderful job tik
watched start to finish and it was great.
i believe you should come back to this timeline and go more in depth with each line of evolution
>calling Nietzsche a hegelian
Oh no no no
"you went full r****d, never go full r****d"
Wagner, Freud and Nietzsche all outspoken Hegelians 🤣🤣
@@ethanchamberlain134 nietzsche was not an outspoken hegalian 🤣🤣...
@@ethanchamberlain134 Cite one single Nietzsche quote calling himself a hegelian, I'll wait.
Always thought he was a student of Schopenhauer
Saying Fascim and Marxism are the same because they can be traced back to Hegel is quite a creative interpretation of the history of philosophy. Hegel was a revolution in philosophy, so any philosophy that came after it was in some level influenced by it. You forgot to mention the difference between the right wing hegelians and the new hegelians. Feuerbach is actually an epistemological rupture that makes dialectical materialism a different line of thought than right wing hegelianism (dialectical idealism) and other leftist hegelian idealisms. Marxism is at the same time hegelian dialectics and a departure from hegelian idealism, which solves the puzzle you pose as why to marxist distance themselves from fascism and puts them together with nazism.
The problem which you overlook is the difference between idealism and materialism, so your interpretation ends up not making much sense.
On a side note, your way of thinking is akin to idealist hegelianism. You tell the history of ideas as if they came from the thinkers minds, dettached from society's material history, the real day to day life and political struggles that give rise to different ideologies.
I love starting the day with some new TIK! 👍
Please do an in-depth video on the Strasserist branch of Nazism! People like to say that they were the "actual Socialist" branch of the Nazis but in saying that they're acknowledging you can have a non-Marxist version of Socialism because the Strasserists were anti-Marxist like the Hitler branch and Mussolini's Fascists were.
Hitler did not start off anti-Communist. Like Mussolini he flirted with Communism at first (because he liked the totalitarian nature of it probably), but by being petite bourgeois from Austria, he probably had a Bavarian socially conservative reaction and rejected it. He preferred the mytical racial mumbo-jumbo of the Thule society as the Nazi ideology totalitarian basis. I knew about that before TIk pointed that out.
@@kryts27 Yeah he hung around with them and when he was an architect and fellow workers in the same trade wanted him to join a union and become a commie and kept shoving it down his throat from what I remember reading in Mein Kampf so it turned him off from Marxism.
@@kryts27
What makes you refer to Thule's notion of race as "mumbo-jumbo"?
Marxist have no problem acknowledging non Marxist socialism idk why you think this means anything
@@jeremyh8833 I've never seen this claim of yours anywhere.
Very clear biases present in the information in this video
Your content is so helpful. I’ve been on a mission of living a more examined life and your videos help on that journey
Very nice video, but regarding Julius Evola I would have some remarks to make.
1. Firstly it would be a mistake to see Evola as some continuation of modern philosophy. Philosophy as he saw it, is a very limited form of knowledge that has only supporting role. At his younger age he wrote few philosophycal books where he formulated his idea of Absolute individual (something he called magical idealism) and passionatly criticized Fitche, Hegel and others, but ultimately he moved away from the world of academic philosophy and adpoted Traditionalism as his intelectuall framework. Traditionalism proclaims the existence of a perennial wisdom which consists of primordial and universal truths that form the source for, and are shared by, all the major world religions. The traditionalists state that ways how to reach these truths are via intelectuall intuition or revelation and philosophy if it is of any worth only uses its language to explain what can be explained or symbolicaly express some aspects of those truths. He claims that those traditions were lost or denied by modern world and therefore he is its avid critic and everything else it represents. His ideas are therfore not his but rather that of manifeted traditions, as such you can put him next to Plato, Thomas Aquinas or Veda, for he is certainly closer to them then to the modern thinkers who since Kant refused metaphysics (even as philosphical discipline let alone transcdental one).
2. He was not fascist nor national socialist. In short fascism and NSDAP can be seen as modernist, materialist and collectivist (plebian as would Evola say). As was stated above he was in direct oppostion to them e.g. traditionalist, transcendentalist and elitist/monarchist. He had some cooperation with them becouse he saw them as potential platforms from which a new order may come but ultimately refused them and even critisicized their very core. He refused modern racism which is solely materialist (according to him human consists of body, soul and spirit, which all of them had their own types or races and therefore even a jew could have an aryan spirit), he despised modern state which he saw as mechanistic and not organic and had only contempt for nationalism which destroyed the caste system and hierarchies in society that safeguarded individual tendencies and enabled complementary harmony in society. There is even a report on him in publicized archives of Waffen SS, where they write to Himmler that: “The reactionary views of Julius Evola are in complete oppostion to the progresive teachings of National Socialism. ”. Not to mention that as he would write: “My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.”
3. He was critical of the neospiritualists and theosophists of the age. He saw them as mere amateurs or even worse as spreaders of subversion. For him people like Blavatsky were just modern lunatics who combined and interpreted ancient teachings as they saw fit. He propagated idea, that only legitimate authorities that were initiated in the orthodox traditions and have direct experience with metaphysical reality are fit to interpret them and intiate others. The fact that they have same areas of interest does not mean that they are one and the same and even less that he was influenced by them.
In conclusion it is very unfortunate to say that he tried to combine Hegels hermetic idealism with Ariosophy (both of them he criticised). His teaching are certainly not derived from fascism, or other modern ideologies for that matter and therefore he cannot be seen as founder of third position. As wiki defines it: Third Position's ideology is characterized by a militarist formulation, a palingenetic ultranationalism looking favourably to national liberation movements, support for racial separatism and the adherence to a soldier lifestyle. Apart from soldier lifestyle he would hardly find anythin of worth in the rest.
This was a difficult subject, and you did a good job of making it easy to follow.
I love you job TIK
Hi Tik. I was one of the happy viewers who suggested Ominous Parallels by Leonard Piekoff. Seeing your struggle with Socialists beginning to develop along philosophical lines is what prompted it. I'm glad that you found it as beneficial as me.
I can only describe this development as a stranded sailor throwing a message in a bottle out to sea and seeing a rescue plane fly over months later.
I'm surprised that you've taken the turn towards criticism of the Occult and mystical aspects of totalitarianism and western political thought. Not because I'm opposed to this line of inquiry, but because I thought it was so obscure and far afield that no one besides me would dream of connecting those two.
Fortunately for us both there's an author by the name of Joseph P Farrell who has done a good deal of the heavy lifting.
The three main books in question are:
1. Thrice Great Hermetica and the Janus Age: The role of Hermetic and Occult ideas in the middle ages and Cathar crusade.
2. Financial Vipers of Venice: The role of secret societies and finance in the Renaissance and the rediscovery of classical (Aristotilean) thought.
3. Babylons Banksters: The role of alchemy and mystical theology in fractional banking and debt based money.
If I was going to extract a single point to summarize the relevant point from an Objectivist point of view:
*There exists an ancient intellectual tradition within Hermeticism that can best be described as enlightenment rationalism and even Americanism, and that it's practitioners have been working as hard on their project as the Platonic/Totalitarian version are. Its practitioners seem to be people like Giordano Bruno, Davinci, Newton, and the American founders.*
I must give you encouragement but also a warning about this path of research:
First, Farrell is very much a mystic himself and is a theologian. Everything he says and writes must be abstracted out of this context.
Second, he speculates. Often. But to his credit he is very clear when he's going out on a limb.
Third, he is content relying on what can be called "ancient whistle-blower testimonies". That is to say documents that don't have official citation or are deemed apocryphal by the corporate academic world. Use these at your own risk.
Fourth, he sometimes clearly asks what can only be called leading questions as well as follows a predetermined conclusion. He frequently seems to base his conclusions on the narrative beats of Holy Blood Holy Grail (the non-fiction book that inspired the Dan Brown novel The Davinci Code). I don't reject it outright. But we have little in the way of hard evidence for it in my view. I think he should be more clear about this inspiration.
There is a last book I must mention parenthetically called Yahweh the Two Faced God. It reads like it could have been cribbed from Piekoff's own book The DIM Hypothesis. If you're in an Objectivist sort of mood I would speed read it in a few hours since it's barely a pamphlet.
By reading Farrel's work you will almost certainly see the great physical opportunity that now exists to put a permanent end to tyranny on earth despite endless news to contrary.
Thanks again for your hard work towards this goal.
Man I just checked Joseph P. Farrell and his books and work looks for me completly insane and unhinged conspiracy theory.
"First, Farrell is very much a mystic himself and is a theologian. Everything he says and writes must be abstracted out of this context."
I dunno man, not sure if you can take anythings he says seriously.
Bill Cooper read Ominous Parallels by Peikoff on the radio when it came out. Bill exposed Masonry in the 90s. I have those broadcasts on a playlist on my channel.
@florianb2329 (But is this really the case?)
I've debated whether to reply to this comment and decided that we're at a point where the concept of "conspiracy" should be explicitly addressed. So don't take this lengthy reply as directed at you personally. I also have no interest in defending Farrell directly. Rather It's meant to address the entire category of reasoning and the objections of passing readers.
Before WW2, "conspiracy theories" were just called "political science":
Quoting Lance DeHaven Smith:
"Understanding these intellectual developments and their significance requires drilling down from the broad sweep of history that we have been discussing to focus on roughly the first decade after World War II and the competing ideas of three scholars of that era. Before the war, much research in history and political science looked for behind-the-scenes decisions. After the war, the new method, referred to as “behavioralism,” examined individual behavior in contained settings (such as voting behavior, administrative behavior, consumer choice, etc.) and sought to identify principles and strategies underlying behavioral patterns."
Lance's book makes specific mention of Plato's theory, and addresses its role in elite political motives. TiK seems aware of the connection to Plato. The point that Smith makes is that the connection is direct and explicit:
*"Strauss never defines what he means by “noble lies” beyond referring to Plato’s The Republic, which is where the term originates. But this was certainly no oversight on Strauss’ part, for it leaves the matter open, which is to say, unlimited. For Plato, noble lies included myths and stories about the society’s origins, rigged lotteries for choosing marriage partners, infanticide, and other actions to create a strong people willing and able to defend themselves in a hostile world. This short list would seem to imply support for many antidemocratic elite conspiracies, including assassinating political leaders, framing dissidents, fomenting mass fear, demonizing rival societies, and letting enemy attacks succeed so that the masses are galvanized to deal with a gathering threat. [3]"*
The role of Strauss is also mentioned at length in "The Power of Nightmares" documentary.
There is a concept in psychology called "hypocognition". There was a group of natives that did not have words for grief. When death or upsetting events occurred they would blame "bad spirits". This lack of language for concretizing related phenomena in the abstract is mentioned by Orwell as "Newspeak" in 1984.
Lance coins the term "SCAD" (State Crime Against Democracy) to concretize the concept that "Conspiracy Theory" is meant to displace: That is high crimes committed by elites.
"Naming the Taboo Topic In what follows, I shall attempt to reorient analysis of the phenomenon that has been assigned the derisive label of “conspiracy theory.” In a 2006 peer-reviewed journal article, I introduced the concept of State Crime against Democracy (SCAD) to displace the term “conspiracy theory.” [13] I say displace rather than replace because SCAD is not another name for conspiracy theory; it is a name for the type of wrongdoing about which the conspiracy-theory label discourages us from speaking. Basically, the term “conspiracy theory” is applied pejoratively to allegations of official wrongdoing that have not been substantiated by public officials themselves."
The assassination of William Morgan by the Freemasons led to the anti-Freemasonic party. It took on a cultural significance similar to the death of Jeffery Epstein. The reason it resulted in organized political action was because political science at the time did not have a way to dismiss explicit, public criticism of suspected elite crimes.
The Freemasons almost dissolved as a result of the political pressure. This kind of pressure isn't available to react to Epsteins death today.
After the depression, Congress also formed the Reese Comittee due to suspicion that rich organizations were attempting to subvert democracy. Before that a group of wealthy industrialists attempted to overthrow the government in the Business Plot. There is enough evidence now to suggest that these groups have mostly succeeded in their goals.
Simply put, "Conspiracy theory" is better defined as: "Political science from the perspective of the victims of political action while official political science is from that of the participants."
The academic term for it, coined by Charles A. Beard is "Critical Historiography."
Thank you for this video. All of these things have been rambling around in my head, atomized, and this really helps tie it all together for me. Been reading about all this stuff for the past three years.
In fairness to Mises, while Kant did influence him especially on epistemology and the role of methodology in economic science, Mises adopted a much more realist interpretation of Kant that's more compatible with Aristotelianism, probably because of Carl Menger's influence who was Aristotelian. Rothbard is also an empiricist and aristotelian who worked on reformulating praxeology away from Kantian framework and more into an Aristotelian-Thomist one
Yeah, pulling just one concept from Kant doesn't make Mises a Kantian. A broken clock is right twice a day, after all.
I'm curious, what do you think is wrong with Kant's system?
@@dreyri2736 Kant denies that humans can know anything real about the world via experience. Kant says that we know only our experience of things and are totally removed from things in themselves because our methods of perception are specific. As Rand put Kant's epistemology: man is blind, because he has eyes, deaf, because he has ears.
More like TIK is biased here. Objectivists society was definitely a cult - many people wrote about that, but TIK is more concern with Kant influence on Austrians.
I heard Peikoff's lection also - when he misrepresented second amendment.
@user-ct6sy5ky8p Peikoff misrepresented the second ammendment...how?
Hello Tik please also do the map of the liberal/libertarian movement ideology map we really want that and also all the post-materialist political ideologies Feminism/enviromentalism .Thank you and also i really want to see the origins/history of psychology that you mention . Everyone that wants the same please like for the support of the creator
I agree with this comment. As much as I am fascinated by the Occult Right, the present day left of liberalism and feminism is much more prevalent. You just have to watch the popular Whatever podcast to see how much Feminism impacts everyone's day to day lives and philosophy.
For this map I'd highly recommend the book "Cynical Theories" by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay. It lays out the chains of history and influence almost exactly like TIK does in this video.
There is a line from feminism/environmentalism and these sort of ideas that go from Marx to Antonio Gramsci to the Frankfurt School, if you're interested in doing some research.
liberal yes but why feminism and environmentalism - they are late not full ideologys and arent about govt social and economics which these philosophiers covered are- they are minor and irrelevant sectarian movements about one aspect of something
Good work! Keep it up. It provides interesting insights into the intellectual frameworks I have never seen in such good shape or form. 👏
Fun fact ,the old school greek philosopher guys like Thales often used water = liquid , earth = solid , fire = plasma(energy) , air=gas ,ether = space-time.
They also used these words to describe the elements themselves but it does not take much training(once you've been told the above paragraph) in reading their tractates until you can tell when it is the philosophical usage and when it is the elements.
Thanks for the info. It is easy to take this stuff literally, and I have thought of these terms like the fire element being a sort of metaphysical fire and not just a description of some phenomenon that is fire-like. It's so easy to just go with your intuition with these things, instead of going into a really complex "What did the ancient Greeks 2500 years ago understand fire as?". I have been too literal the way I have read stuff like Aristotles element system, and thought it was a bit weird. I thougth that Aristotles element system works pretty well but is a bit too rough. I need to reread that stuff now with new eyes. (It could be that Aristotle and Plato changed the stuff to more metaphysical since you mentioned the older guys)
@@vege4920I India too, it was known as kshiti (earth) jal (water) pawak (fire) gagan (sky) samir (air)
Even if I deeply disagree with your map, at least you created it. I had always enjoyez synoptic stuff, aka the time put in charts. And when I say "at least", it's not ironical. I'm englued into deep procrastination so I really admire those who turn their thoughts into concrete work.
Excelent work!! When im reading more and more philosophy, more im starting to realise that religion and politics are connected.
Fun fact: Spaventa in Italian means "he scares". Apparently, Bertrando was born in a town called Bomba, which means "bomb".
Gentile mean kind
Disagree with the Epicurean hedonism being a plague... It's quite stupid to say that Epicurus believed in hedonism, he rather believed in discipline and abstinence.
A very nice video. If you continue to upgrade the map, it would be great ! Correcting the links of Nietzsche and Hitler (Based in his link to Schopenhauer). And excluding Evola from the links between fascism and darwinism, because evola is more related to the perenialist tradition (Going back to a lot of characters and religions in history, buddism, hiduism, islam...). Creating the links between darwin and aristotle is essential too.
This brought back memories of "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure," in which the titular slacker goofball duo have a report due for history class, but haven't written anything, build a time machine which they use to go back in time and personally interview the subjects of the assignment, starting off with the Greek philosopher "So-CRATES."
"Socrates" of course has three syllables, not two; "Thales," similarly, has two syllables: "they-LEES". The "-es" suffix is common in Greek names, and always a distinct syllable: see also "Heracles," "Sophocles," "Erastothenes,"etc
Also, the German "ö," usually transliterated to "oe" in English, represents a kind of "er" sound, but with the lips rounded like "o"; "th" is like English "t", so "Goethe" sounds like "Ger-tuh"
Good start at a complicated topic regardless. Most people don't realize just how popular the philosophies underlying National Socialism were, and this chart helps put them in perspective.
Since you mention Volkisch ("folx"), although not a direct antecedent to NatSoc, but a parallel growth, you might want to check out W.E.B. Dubois ("Do-boyz") "The Souls of Black Folk"
All we now still need is the connection to 21st century Autism
comfort misinformation, and simple ignorance of what a dangerous ideology looks like is what ill chock it up to. Then theres the schizo idea that the old world money just keeps everyone fighting and poor to keep them from taking control of the world and truth to our history.
All those connections come through Murray Rothbard.
Microplastics probably....
Autistic individuals are more prone to demonic possession, coming from someone who has it. Thankfully Jesus freed me from many of my past afflictions. Jesus is the one and only hope for humanity
@@januarysson5633autism = anarcho-capitalism???
Thank you for putting in all the time and effort in creating this clear religious/political historical schematic, it clarifies a lot for me. 🙂👍
bro, nice video, but just as you didn't connect Aristotle to Plato you need to disconnect Nietzsche from Hegel, you really need to read more Nietzsche , the guy had 3 philosophical periods , and yes his first period might have been hegelianism, but by the 3rd period he was his own thing, quite a drastic evolution which we rarely see in philosophers.
I think this is exactly the point that complicates things wildly. Many or even most thinkers throughout history had changing ideas and different periods as you said, so maybe it could be useful in these sorts of ”mindmaps” to specify what specific thought inspired who and why.
This dude is not reading shit I can promise you that
@@speggeri90 it still doesn’t make sense to connect him to Hegel, because what he is most famous for, is his last period, which was very different from Hegel. It would make more sense to connect him to Schopenhauer, who is then again connected to Kant.
many descendant thinkers of nietzsche(deleuze, land) generally argue on behalf of nietzsches violent anti-dialectics/anti-hegelian position. however i wouldnt expect the creator of this video to have read a single philosophy book ever, let alone something as dense and mind-bending as Deleuze.
I think he needs to read all of the philosophers he mentioned and stop learning philosophy from Wikipedia!
In regards to the Freemasons I read John Dickie's "The Craft".
And from what I recall from the book and my general knowledge, Freemasons did originate from medieval guilds, but they started transitioning into a cult in it's modern form sometime around 17th century on the British isles.
There would later on be a division in doctrine sometime around the French revolution, with Freemasonry splitting into the conservative English branch which follows the ancient rites (it remains pervasive in anglosphere countries) and the liberal Continental branch which follows the rites of the moderns (technically started out in the British isles as well, but French lodges were the ones that kept the rites of the moderns and then spread it to most of continental Europe). The regular English lodges typically do not allow in black people or women, while Continental lodges are a lot more liberal with who's allowed.
One interesting fact about Freemasonry is that a lot of notable cults and esoteric groups that formed in the west during 18th and 19th centuries (from the Illuminati to possibly even the Mormons) were created by masons that were inspired by or even integrated a lot of freemason ideas and rites into their secret societies. The Catholics naturally didn't like any of them, as masons ranged from secular political activists, to esoteric nerds that thought eating Egyptian mummies will heal their ailments (Surprise fact... it did not...).
So overall, it would be more accurate to say that Blavatsky was influenced by esoteric groups spawned from Freemasonry, rather than Freemasonry itself. As due to Freemasons like Bram Stoker being obsessed with esoteric shit is what led to a Balkan folk lore creatures - vampires, becoming a staple of British and American culture in a form of Dracula. The reputation of Freemason societies being satanic didn't come out of nowhere, and it was due to similar reasons as to why metal music used to be seen as satanic (now that I think about it, it shouldn't be a coincidence why black metal even has a whole sub-genre called NSBM. Being obsessed about the esoteric and norse mythology just leads you to fascism apparently).
Loved this episode!
you love being stupid.
but the diagram is missing a lot of philosophers/theologians like Luther, Calvin, Descartes, Hume, Husserl, Malebranche, Wittgenstein, Francis Bacon (who created the scientific method and was a Christian) and a lot more that I don't even remember. also when you say that there are philosophers who are mystics you're actually referring to the fact that they have metaphysics and this is not against science in any way, it is the absence of metaphysics that comes to deny the principle of causality (as Hume and the Vienna Circle did). but I must say that it was still a good video.
This is perhaps one of the most important videos of yours. Thank you!
Thank you for your work. Great to see another objectivist.
I still remember when ChatGPT chastised me for using Aryan instead of “Proto-Indo-European” when discussing the similarities between their religions.
Yeah, they bias because the internet is ruled by the left and that's where GPT Takes information from, the internet.
It’s not wrong tbh. There’s not much evidence thr western branches of Indo-Europeans called themselves Aryans, likely it was only the Indo-Iranians.
There's so much propaganda during the indo Aryan era, likely because historians try to distance themselves from natsocs
@@Sound557 Funnily enough, outside of Europe this word is used without any negative connotation. For example here, in Armenia, many common words contain the root ayr/ary and we still use it without ideological meanings. Also, in Iran and India of course, this word has no negative meaning.
@@bondex392 It means noble, right? People don't like the racial connotations but acknowledging the Aryans helps show the shared roots of many branches of the human family
When you decided to put the disasters created by some leaders and political movements inspired by Marx it put a stain on the whole video. In a list including mass famine and Cambodian genocide you also just say "Cuba". Apparently Cuba's existence belongs in the same category as one of the worlds worst known genocides because Marx? 15m of the video is you talking about Nazi's but there's no "(holocaust)" or "(ww2)" next to his name. You claim at the end of the video that you don't want to include your person political views but they were made abundantly clear not even halfway through. Western bias at show here
this video is shallow as fuck, conventional wisdom peak
Well done, TIK!! I personally appreciate your work and research, and the excellent map of connections and evolution. This looks like the core of a good book, you have done the work and research, you just need to convert your understanding into writing, perhaps beginning with this video, and pull in from other videos. Not that it would make you rich or anything, it may not earn much at all. So sadly, the project would need to be a side-work and labor of love, while your main work earns your income. Cheers! - Ken Hoganson, Professor Emeritus and Ph.D. Computer Science. P.S., I might volunteer to help, though I am no expert, but have been curious since my undergrad years. I have published textbooks in C.S. -- I could help as an unpaid reviewer or contributor, as my retirement is fortunately, very comfortable.
Thank you, TIK! Please dig deeper into von Mises and Rothbard.
This chart simply shows that for the overwhelming majority of people, there is the spirit to believe in some sort of supernatural force, unconsciously at least.
Not just the majority, everyone.
Everyone, whether they realize it or not, believes in something. If not a deity, then a concept, whether that be an ideology or some kind of natural force.
Even the rejection of religion becomes a religion, if you follow it fanatically.
@@dannydacheedo1592 The spiritual need in human beings is as present and required for a healthy mind as any other biological need. No matter what anyone thinks, they very likely worship something in life.
@@dannydacheedo1592 Yes, and ultimately no matter how hard a person dedicates themselves to operating on reason alone, digging into down to the foundations of their rationality will eventually reveal a nonrational presupposition that everything else is built upon. This is because reason and empiricism are tools with limitations like any other. Perception is determined by valuation, and thus reason must to some degree rest on some a priori valuation. It is possible and beneficial to test reasonings based on other valuations without necessarily accepting them, or even to use the results to adjust your own a priori valuation, but it is not possible to avoid a starting set of values and assumptions that determine the application of reason.
And there lies the "religion" of each and every person no matter how non- or anti-religious. In other terms, "worldview." It is more intellectually honest with oneself and others to be open and upfront about one's own valuations and starting assumptions than to simply pretend not to be operating on any.
@@dannydacheedo1592 True. What matters is that some people believe in a supernatural force or philosophical idea that advocates for harm against other people. Some even fake religions that at their base are anti-hate. For example his is why the KKK hate the guts of the Catholic Church. It stood up against them. Another example would be modern political ideologies. What I don't get is how can some people not realise they are against their own ideas, like contemporary social-liberal leftism. You claim to be anti-racist and for freedom for everyone, but hate white people (yourself for most) and any other group that simply just calls you out. I know that in the human spirit there is an "Us vs Them" mentality, but so many years of evolution just for us to still fight.
@@SepticFuddyah yes the transcendental argument. Honestly I have yet to see any atheist or empiricist be able to defeat it without directly relying upon it or a fallacy
A terrific video Tik, and a very insightfull begining of a map ...
Hey TIK, great video! There is one thing I'd recommend you read it's an essay by Michael Huemer entitled "Why I am not an Objectivist", he's a philosophy professor in Colorado who also happens to be an ancap and he takes Objectivism seriously (no straw-man critiques). The truth of the matter is that Ayn Rand's philosophy does have some problems and while most philosophers like Hegel are clearly off their rocker they're also wrestling with issues that Objectivism does not really address. Hope you see this, as a former Objectivist myself that essay made me realise how deep the philosophical rabbit-hole really goes
So what are you now philosophically?
@@HoraceWah-pole-ry4qk To be honest I feel I haven't done enough research to give you a definitive answer, so far I lean towards American Pragmatism, but especially the later ones have some opinions I consider bafflingly stupid. So I wouldn't say I'm an adherent of any particular philosophy yet.
re Objectivism's deficiencies (especially its cultish intolerance and intellectual intimidation tactics, akin to Maoist "struggle sessions"): Consider this (poor quality) video of Murray Rothbard's one act play "Mozart Was A Red", produced by the Mises Institute in the '80s: . th-cam.com/video/tuSodwE4q6s/w-d-xo.html
@@Feingeist01 Interesting, I used to be a pragmatist myself but I couldn't hold with the fallacies by William James and Peirce's pragmaticism was too science-focused.
I think I know who the later opinion, Richard Rorty. The man is a nut.
I need to look more into Objectivism more, but it has always been clear to me that most if the hate for Rand is due to:
A. Most of her critics being left leaning.
and
B. Everyone else hates her, she must be bad. Here's a bad quote or recording of her, that's enough for me!
I say this because there was a meme someone made with Marx and Rand, all criticism was of Rand - Marx took virtually no heat. I have also asked people why they hate Rand or found their opinions and all of them were excruciatingly lacking in any detail or demonstration of what she actually believes.
Again, I should look more into her - but even if wrong, she is clearly misrepresented.
Immanuel Kant was not trying to save religion from science, he was trying to save religion and science from skepticism, specifically David Hume's skepticism.
He was unable to without some sort of personalized transcendental force. Kinda funny how science and skepticism relies upon Christianity and other faith based ideologies to justify itself.
@@prestonjennings6277 It is not correct that science relies on Christianity or any other faith based impulse or doctrine. Skepticism is just bad philosophy and can never be justified by any means whatsoever.
Specifically , Kant understood limits of science and logic, later to be formalized by Kurt Godel with his incompleteness theories.
He tried and failed.
You are asking too much of TIK
excellent mapping and so vital
Praxeology is not mysticism. Praxeology is the art of applying deductive reasoning to human action. It is essentially formal logic applied to individuals and incentives. Simply sharing a broadly used academic term with Kant does not mean the Austrians are essentially religious. Many are, but "Austrian Economics" and its political implications are based entirely on reason. If you believe that the reasoning is flawed, then fine, but asserting that having read and shared the basis for a theory with someone who believed in mystic mumbo jumbo means you are somehow infected with mysticism is nonsense. That would be akin to saying someone is a crypto-Christian because they believe in sharing.
Other than that, great video. I appreciate you having the balls to admit your understanding of statist movements has grown. It would have been nice to see Neocons and Neolibs linked to their respective camps, though.
"Many are, but "Austrian Economics" and its political implications are based entirely on reason."
Well, that's not good. If it's not evidence-based, then it can easily become detached from reality, which is what I was getting at.
@@TheImperatorKnightThere's no evidence in human action, sociology and economics are not science, contrary to what wikipedia says. You can only deduce when it comes to human nature, similiar to mathematics. Do we reject mathematics because it's not "evidence based"? (empiricism based)
@@TheImperatorKnight You can easily say the same thing about other logic-based pursuits like mathematics. However, I do think this may have legs and after learning from you for years now, I'm certainly open to having my mind changed as this wouldn't be the first time. My only gripe here is that Austrians do use models. It's not all "Theory of Marginal Utility" this and "Economic Calculation Problem" that. What do you propose they're missing?
So is there a notable difference between praxeology and Praxis? As I understood, Praxis specifically relates to applying theory and action according to a Critical (Marxist) set of ethics and analysis.
@@baph0met Mathematics, whilst abstracted in how it is used is evidence based since it follows strict logic which can be represented and reproduced in the real world. You can count 4 sheep, and if you so choose to have the same number of sheep included to the existing sheep you will have 8 sheep, not 7 or 9.
Come to think of it, French Revolution was never mentioned in this entire thing which is subtly surprising to me honestly, given how many people seem to view that as the origin of many different political ideas (at least on the continent, after all, the American Revolution predates it by a few years, which people forget).
The French revolution was the result of ideas already developed.
The French Revolution had more extreme ideologies and allowed for them to spread in Europe because of Napoleon's invasions
Wow! Thank you for this. I have mentally been doing a similar mapping, but mine is not nearly as complete, and I never actually put them into a visual representation like you have done. This is really great. I would only have a quibble with Ayn Rand having been influenced by Thomas Aquinas. While she has admiration of him, she clearly gets her ideas directly from Aristotle, and only mentions Aquinas historically. She never references any ideas of Aquinas that I can see, and she was not of any religion, or school that derived from Aquinas either. Her references to Aristotle are legion though. Again. Thank you for doing this. I just discovered your videos here, so I will be going over them as I can.
Another tour de force. In particular, good that you picked up on the primacy of the ideal per Plato in Mises' emphasis on deductive reasoning from a small set of axiomatic principles. I would say the big difference between Plato and Aristotle is Aristotle's belief in the trustworthiness of the senses, so that observation and experiment are valid sources of knowledge. The latter - the scientific method - is the better dividing line between mysticism and reason, than merely rejecting assertions because they are religious.
This a completely wrong approach to history of ideas, intellectual history or even history of ideologies. Ideas, ideologies and intellectuals are not product of single lines of development. They are more like knots of networks.
Ideologies are not a unified body, they are agglomerates of different and even contradictory ideas from the past and the present. Ideologies are not closed, they are open and in constant transformation to adapt to the changing present social, economic and political conditions.
This is a high level overview, emphasizing the connections and evolution of ideas. It is NOT intended to be a complete and comprehensive work on the subject, which would likely be a multi-volume work.
@@kenhoganson9481 Not a reason to spend 10 minutes talking about occultists and skipping Schopenhauer and the whole liberal branch of the map, only mentioning bloody Ayn Rand of all people in the last few minutes of the video.
@@Solaire_au_Frohmage A pretty good reason actually. This wasn't intended as the kind of work you expected apparently. Nevertheless, he added some pinned clarifications.
@@gThomasHagg Brother, explain to me, what kind of work it is supposed to be then? Why specific philosophers or ideologists were completely taken out of the picture or skipped, while half the video was spent on rose-cross order, occultists and comparing every single "modern" ideology he (the author) doesn't associate with to Hitler/Nazism?
I think I would love to see you make a video on J. Krishnamurti, his relationship to the Theosophical society, the impact it had on his message, and whether or not he successfully does what he claims, which is denouncing all ideological influence and to be "unconditionally free" from any human conditioning, and whether or not there exists any philosophical parallel.
Would love a video on the Freemasons. I know so little about them and it seems like they play a more significant role than I realized.
I believe that we should start with the current state of the ideology, namely Evola. After TIK has grounded us in the current state of it, he can start work on Freemasonry.
Masonry is the Mother of Subversive Religions. It's members have been starting wacky cults like Scientology or Heavens Gate or Theosophy or Mormons or Wokeism and even Marxism for CENTURIES. Aeons! In the ancient world the story is the same. Look at the Sabbattean Frankists. Their members go on to found B'nai B'rith, the ADL, and the SPLC. All under the umbrella of the Templar Scottish Rite Network.
@thatman8490 - NSDAP racial theories made much of its ideology contradictory, such as the Freemason connection that TIK demonstrated and the nazi belief that Freemasonry, Capitalism and Bolshevism were all Jewish plots to Germany's detriment
The freemasons are secretive, any many of those who have written on them are schizophrenic, the most interesting angle would probably be the Catholic one as the two organisations have been in an underground war for centuries, however access to that information might be more difficult considering that liberals have pretty thoroughly infiltrated the Church at this point, it seems as though freemasons were involved in Vatican II even.
It is historically accepted that they were important in the American and French Revolution, Whig politics, the political instability in Tsarist Russia, the 1848 uprisings and similar liberal revolutions, the Carlist wars and the Greek war of independence (which they started, helpfully wreaking long term Russian ambitions and leading to horrific reprisals against Greeks in Anatolia and other parts of the Ottoman empire, and eventual ethnic cleaning, not that the Ottomans didn't try even at the time, with an Egyptian army seeming to have the intention of enslaving the Greeks and colonizing Greece).
Unsurprisingly not the nicest bunch, but they sure got around.
Like found the United States and Republican France? Lol...yeah they are hugely influential.
My new favourite chanel, that was EXACTLY what I wanted from you, thank you so much
How is Nietzsche hegelian? Saying that should be a crime
He spreads propaganda about Nietzsche being Hegelian so he can justify his bullshit about Fascism being closer to Marxism than Nazism.
Yeah he should either state the nature of the relationship in the map like compounding/contributive & diametrical or oppositional relations which granted would increase the Map's complexity by a lot but it would clear up such "confusions" Or use the historical relations to connect the evolution of the discourse & ideas, so a statement ,"enlightenment philosophers sought separate man from religion on the basis of derivation of Christian teachings", now realistically that statement has a LOT wrong but it also eatablishes a relationship thus connecting secular thinkers with Christians & establishing a separation with that same relation which may be pretty much impossible with a line chart map, history of philosophy & political philosophy is a lot more complicated than a line to a point!
You really don't do justice to Kant (which is understandable if you haven't read him, especially Critique of Pure Reason). His entire project was actually bridging the gap between rationalism and empyricism, two equally compelling but somewhat contradictory currents of philosophy. He was not influenced directly by Plato, as you've drawn (of course he was influenced in some ways and in some ways replicated Plato's idealism), but rather by more contemporary philosophers: Decartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, Lock, etc. Also there's little if any mysticism to be found in him, rather, he single-handedly destroyed all pretentions to mysticism by banishing concepts like God and Free Will to the realm of Noumenon, a thing-in-itself (or the world-in-itself, the world as it truly is beyond our phenomenological perception of it), which humans have absolutely no access to and are only able to speculate and believe in, but never truly know. Also, in many ways Kant can be seen as a progenitor of Neuro-science, since he's likely the first to try to fully dissect and categorize the process of human cognition and thinking, albeit in logical, not empyrical terms. Hegel took some Kant's ideas, mostly his dialectic, turned it upside down, and discarded Kant's most valuable assertions on the limits of human mind in order to once again engage in mystical rationalist thinking: basically pretending to be able to deduce the mind of God. Kant must not have been pleased with him, as was Kant's most faithful intellectual descendant, Arthur Schopenhauer, who hated and criticized Hegel with great passion. If there was one philosophy book that's essential to read for everyone, regardless of ideology, Critique of Pure Reason must be it (if you can handle it's extremely complex and detailed logic). It's both enlightening and humbling, forever burying any grandiose pretentions that you, as a human being, can know everything about everything.
Inventing the Noumenon just reinvented the mystical. If he wanted to save religion from Newton, well, he succeeded. Perhaps beyond his wildest imaginings.
@@PaulthePhilosopher2 And yet, out modern science operates on this same presupposition that we do not have direct access to the "real" world, or "the truth", only to sensory data, and we construct models about how the phenomenological world works, that are not "True", but merely predictive and "good enough" until future experiments and findings will disprove our model. The Noumenon is simply saying: Who Knows, what the world in itself really is, we have zero access to it in principle. The very definition of "Mystic" is directly opposite to this - having certain, innate knowledge about the true nature of the world, God, Soul, etc., you name it. Had you read Kant, you must have understood this point clearly. He spends a good portion of his Critique refuting all arguments for God's existence and logically proving the impossibility to either prove or disprove God. Kant reduced metaphysics and ontology to mere questionmarks. After Kant you can still "Believe" to have some direct knowledge of God or whatnot, but you can never claim to have "proved" anything relating to ontology.
@@PaulthePhilosopher2 There's nothing mystical at all about the concept of Noumenon. On the contrary, it's directly anti-mystical, saying we can NEVER directly access and know the world as it really is, or God, or The Soul, or Free Will, we can not know anything at all beyond the phenomenological world or the content of our own mind.
@@spectralisation It is a reinvention of the mystery cult. Asserting that the unknowable exists, that is it. That is the trick. If instead Kant asserted that all which exists is knowable and that unknowable implies nonexistent that would be truly anti-mystical. But Kant set aside a place for religion to hide.
@@PaulthePhilosopher2 Claiming that all that exists is directly knowable would be delusional. Unless you limit the realm of existence only to observable phaenomena, which would in turn generate a problem about where all this observable universe stems from, and attempting to answer it through physics alone will lead us to infinite regression, discovering or inventing smaller and smaller elementary particles until we inevitably move our theories beyond the realm of measurable empyrical data.. which is exactly what happened with physic in the last century! No serious physicist today would argue that we can, even in principle, obseve and gather data on everything that exists, but claiming that something doesn't exist at all merely by virtue of us not being able to experience it, would be... beyond delusional, it's a straight path to total solipsism. Out of sight, out of mind and out of existence.
Very well made!!🙏🏼
also, Proto-Indo-Europeans had little influence over ancient Middle-Eastern religions - those were much older, like the Sumerian myths which later influenced Babilon and thus all Semitic beliefs. And you also had Egypt. Ancient Egypt probably had the most influence over Greek pre-Socratic philosophy.
_Nature Magazine_ said that the DNA taken from pharaohs at the time of Exodus comes from the Levant (Palestine) area. There was a large Red Sea slave trade at the time...
Yes the opening was quite disappointing.
A historian should know better. "Proto-Indo-European" is not a documented historical fact. It is just one pre-historical hypothesis, an educated guess, conducted from circumstantial evidence. And it was cooked up only couple hundred years ago for identity political narrative..
The historical fact is that there is no evidence of so called Indo-European languages before classical Iron Age. Even Hittite is only first recorded ca 1400 BC. And Hittite does not even fit to the reconstructed "Indo-European" proto-language. Which sort puts question to the validity of the whole "Proto-Indo-European" hypothesis.
BTW, the scholars who created the "legend of Proto-Indo-Europeans were Christian creationist s by upbringing , they believed they were descendants of sons of Noah and Adam. Thus the legend of Proto-Indo-Europeans is an Abrahamic Judeo-Semitic philosophical construction - an Urvolk that wanders from an Urheimat like the Children of Israel
They have confirmed they existed with genetic evidence, of course what they were exactly is still a matter of considerable debate.
We know that the Germans, Slavs, Huns, and Scandinavians came from Central Asia. We know that higher caste Indians, the ancestors of the Kurds and Afghans also came from Central Asia. The Turks and even Persians also have genetic links. The Turks even have genetic links to Koreans and Mongols. We have to assume a lot of Asia and parts of Europe are distantly related to each other because historically it's documented that they all came from the Central Asian Steppes and genetic testing is giving surprising links. According to DNA testing, the Franks and Chinese split off from each other more recently than some groups of Africans who are well known to have been isolated from each other. Using DNA testing scientists traced the migration of ancient groups of Amerindians from Central China around the Yellow River Valley to Argentina. The Indo-European theory still has some credibility simply because Asia was once filled with small nomadic ethnic groups of hunter-gatherers and pastoralists. Large groups, especially if they had more advanced military technologies were dominant until they stopped being militarily dominant and then they migrated or disappeared from the record.
Dionysus wasn't merely a god of festival and wine. He is the god of the old world. A remnant of earth goddess, nature cult. He is the antithesis of Apollonic idealism. He represents the cyclical natural phenomenons like life and death and seasonality. He was an outsider god in Greek mythology, he was a symbol of what's left from earlier human believes. When men begin to put ideas before natural reality, their beliefs evolved to more abstract ideas about life and death. Dionysus degrades into something simple as wine.
Plotinus wasn't christian
You are correct. Thank you. It wouldn't be a TIK video if there wasn't at least one mistake in it 🤦♂️
He wasn't but his neoplatonic philosophy created Christianity and developed further by Augustine. The source of Christianity is ultimately Plato.
@@lights473False, neo-platonism was merely an influence on some Christian scholars, notably Augustine, but certainly not the basis. Fundamentally, Christianity rejects Platonic forms and the "One" as monistic heresy, opting instead for a transcendental answer to the One-and-Many question - The Triune God.
@@chico9805Huey dropping facts
@@lights473 sure he did...3 centuries after the creation of Christianity. He was the first example of retrocausality?
Perhaps a refresher is in order. Christianity begins in Judea around 33 AD. It an outgrowth from Judiasm which has existed since around 1300 BC or so.
So sure, some guy from the 200s AD "created" Christianity, not all those documented people from the period 33 to 90 AD.
In addition, Plotinus is COMPLETELY unknown to the church that he "created"--to the point that no one had heard of him at all prior to the 19th century AD. Even Augustine, who was known, was not much of an influence outside the Roman Church which replaced him with Aquinas in the 13th century. In fact, Augustine is a point of deflection from which the Eastern and Western churches begin their schism.
I think your scholarship is under appreciated & I would like to see you interact with others more, interviews, debates, analysis etc.
I have been thinking recently that politics is more a tree than a line or graph. This is _much_ better than the political spectrum.
As an aside, I think it _could_ be valuable doing a version where you show lines like those between Aristotle and Plato, with a different color line maybe, to help more fully categorize.
I also think in the longterm it might be valuable to explain what ideas were taken in each line.
Man, this is great. Love the channel. I’ve read some great books recently as a result of finding Tik. Most recently was The cause of Hitlers Germany by Peikoff. That book made me go back to my copy of Philosophy who needs it by Rand. Good stuff.
Best video so far. Keep updating this map. Priceless.
Thanks for this great resource
Sorry if this is redundant, i couldn't go through all the comments. Great video, my only small criticism would be that you left off the French Fascists/Syndacalists. Guys like George Sorel were instrumental in the development of Italian Fascism
Yes, some have mentioned him. My intention is to update this timeline going forward, so I'll be adding him onto it.
The line from Ayn Rand to Empiricism seems thin at best. It seems to be more towards Aquinas and certainly Aristotle and there are definite links to Classical Liberalism as well. Libertarianism seems to get its influences from Ayn Rand and not only through von Mises.
With Empiricism also tied to Kant (father of modern philosophy), this also adds to the reasoning of Rand not tied to Empiricism.
Evola would be an interesting one to get into more. How these seemingly dissimilar streams get tied together in 3rd Positionism. Could btw be since both had Kant influences.
I appreciate very much the fact that you put your references explicitly below of what you are immediately talking about, instead of compiling a bunch of disorganized names in your description.
Excellent video. Philosophy has a lot to answer for.
I do think you're right about Austrian economics missing something.
Their methods are interesting and useful to an extent, but their greatest asset is also their fundamental flaw: the reliance on human reasoning. If the reasoning does not account for ALL economic factors, then it can come out to an incorrect conclusion.
That's why it's better suited to the role of historical economic analysis, but they have a hard time making predictions.
this is my favorite video of yours so far. Thx
I'm surprised Zoroastrianism wasn't included in this. It had big influences on Judaism and its derivative religions (including Christianity).
If we want to go back everything starts with Animism, the idea that everything had an anima or soul just like humans...rocks, the ocean, the sun, fire, etc.
Other way around. Baruch and Daniel (Hebrew Prophets) influenced the Persian empire to turn from pagan fallen angel worship to worshiping the God of Israel. Who is the maker of all things. However Haman and other evil people corrupted the religion and kicked out the Parthians who later became the barbarian tribes and also the Scythian tartars.
@@NathanAmiel Lmao what the hell are you blabbering about 🤣
@@prs_81 After you die you will be judged by the Lord your God
@@prs_81 The point is you need to accept Jesus as your only Lord and Savior.
It would be interesting to know about conservativism, like the Tories in UK or the Christian Democracy in the Continent or the Republican Party in the US. This series about politics is amazing! I love it!
Modern conservatism in the USA is only 5 years old. The Democrats called anyone who agreed with them liberals and anyone who didn't conservatives. The British have been using those names for centuries.
Modern conservatism in the USA is only 5 years old. A certain group of people called anyone who agreed with them liberals and anyone who didn't conservatives. This obviously caused a lot of confusion and controversy in the USA. The problem is once the political parties latch onto an idea, it's really hard to get them to stop calling each other by those terms no matter how nonfactual and ridiculous. The British have been using those names for centuries.
The last time the Republican Party of the US. had an idea was when it came out against slavery. It has been complacently reacting to events ever since.
I think the Republicans in America can trace their lineage more to the Whigs than the Tories.
This is like a first year student of a degree of philosophy trying to grasp a bit of everything without having any idea at all. You can't connect the peices of the puzzle without learning about their proper shape. Do not make divugation until you have some knowledge to teach. You are responsible of that as a content creator with such a big audience
thanks a lot TIK this is the kind of videos I lake most... I hope things are better in the UK
I would love to see something more in-depth on conservatism, notably, you said Objectivism is the only ideology on the map that isn't mystical, but it appears Edmund Burke's conservatism on this map also does not pull from Kant or those before him. As we know, conservatism did not necessarily start or end with Burke, but it would definitely be a bit complicated to get into influences like Fortescue, Hooker, Coke, Selden, Hale, and Blackstone, and I understand why you can't fully flesh that out in a video like this. Also I would argue that John Locke definitely influences some modern political parties, especially in the Anglo sphere, like the Democrats and at times the Republicans. Both were primarily liberal parties in the past since the end of World War II and it is only recently that the Republicans have gone in a more conservative direction (nation-states, protectionism, non-interventionism) and the Democrats have gone in a more Marxist direction. I highly, highly recommend you read the book "Conservatism: A Rediscovery" by Yoram Hazony. It completely fleshes out how Conservatism differs from liberalism. I could imagine it might be a little offensive to your more liberal/libertarian/agnostic/anti-statist sensibilities though, so it would need to be read with an open mind (you read tons of things you disagree with so this shouldn't be an issue anyway). Also the author is very Jewish (and was born in America, moved to Israel) so he does occasionally over-weigh the Jewish influence on Anglo-Conservative thought a little more than he should, especially compared to Christianity, but just something to keep in mind.
Edit: Also as you mentioned at the end, Rousseau didn't come up in your research but it would be interesting to see how he influenced modern ideologies as well, and notably how he influenced the French Revolution. His ideas about breaking the chains of responsibility to other humans definitely have carried forward into our increasingly atomized and individualistic world.
Ayn Rand stated that things where not better for being old or new, she didn't focused on nostalgia/conservatism or futurism/progressivism but in which was the best political system for men, as Chesterton said: the eternal men.
This sums up a whole lot. 10/10!
You might want to discuss Hitler's admiration towards Islam and Carl Jung's psychoanalysis of him.
Or the economical structure and realtions of his country and the "liberal" countries.
Go look at his other video "Insane reason why Himmler recruited foreign waffen ss"
Content on an impressive intellectual level