Видео

Excellent, Monsieur!

I imagine that as labor became more expensive in England, the push towards acquiring colonies and slaves grew. If so, another downside of the Industrial Revolution-aside from the aspect of global warming-was that it encouraged colonization and the slave trade and, therefore, increased the abuse of people of third-world countries. Would you agree?

6:37 "The formal annexation of Bosnia [by Austria-Hungary] angered the Russians…" - I'm guessing the reason why Russia was angry about that is because it allowed a competing power, Austria-Hungary, to grow in strength and thus reduced the chances of Russia getting nearby Constantinople one day.

Great upload. Thank you.

Since everyone seems to be making suggestions, how bout a spin off on Macaulay (or Whigs more generally)? Comparing (alleged) teleology, in other words, in our own tradition (and 'freedom' for that matter). Feel free of course to decline impertinent requests for unpaid work (and all instructions) from strangers.

So pleased to find this. I've been thinking I need a fellow Englishman to help me understand this impenetrable, theoretical, and very continental mystery.

I have a different interpretation, but this is excellent. I loved it.

What an extraordinary find! I echo Florian’s comment and add-this must be the first RUclips channel which explains so lucidly, and so academically, these subjects I find deeply fascinating.

Excellent presentation! More understandable than that given by Heideggerian scholars

Thank you from Kashmir

Tis a very interesting presentation of his story. I can't quite get past how annoying watching the pipe smoking is!

An excellent synthesis of the book and the man. Thank you.

Lawrence died of a motorbike crash/ He was riding a Brough SS100, a motorcycle that could easily surpass 100 MPH (claims of up to 130MPH exist) Imagine that speed married to pre-WW2 brakes, pitiful suspension and no helmet. Apply Occam's Razor,

Many heartfelt thanks, Sir, you speak to my condition ! Quite frankly, if you expanded this to a book (preferably a concise booklet), it would be the most important contribution to the philosophy of life since Epictetus' Enchiridion !

I have the book. What s wealth of information about it!

Nothing short of brilliant! it is with relish that I watched through your lecture on this extraordinary man. I have just discovered from you that such a book even exists.

Excellent presentation! In reading the book, I was reminded of what the wit said about Wagner - something along the lines of 'great deserts of tedium, punctuated by oases of sheer bliss'...

You sir are a gentlemen and a Scholar! I'm watching this to help with A-level economics very well explained.

Excellent work

Very well done, great listen!

what's with the pipe?

Hi from Manto. Nice one.

A Frenchman listening to an English gentleman talk about German philosophy... fantastic!

what fantastically synced audio!

Thanks Dr St John for this! These pipe casts are always really interesting

Your work is moribund.

Some should tell this gentleman that it is easier and healthier to speak without smoking a pipe !!

It was delivered today and I read it immediately. I think the most difficult problems facing a Conservative Party (or even more unlikely, a US Republican Party) that took this path would be squaring the circle on balancing capitalism with tradition/society/wholistic human experience, and also the approach to the individual (far more in terms of the United States). Recognizing the importance of well-being and improving it, also necessarily involves deriving benefits from gains in prosperity created by the combination of technology and capitalism. When you boil it down, the profit incentive motivated the deployment of technology that steadily reduced the resources and workforce necessary first for agriculture, and then for industry. This makes possible more time for pleasurable activities and more resources and workers for industries that cater towards them. Professional sports, entertainment industry, and so forth. None of which is possible when 95% of the population toil in the ground to just barely get enough food to not starve. On the other hand, this is destructive with the elimination of jobs and communities in the process. There are also limits to which government action can be undertaken to preserve communities, especially if a conservative government should do as little as possible as the essay stated. I think some of this can be addressed via trade as we previously addressed and preserving gainful employment in a town has both social benefits for the local community, but also helps the fiscal picture since that means fewer people resorting to entitlements and less money needing to be transferred to keep the school/hospital from closing (since the tax base is preserved). In the coal industry in the United States, while regulation is a part of the problem, much of the decline stems from natural gas being so much cheaper than coal owing to the rise in fracking and the shale energy boom. Many environmentalists want to ban fracking and coal, but ironically coal would benefit from fracking being banned as the price of natural gas would go up and power plants wouldn't face such an incentive to shift to gas based on the numbers. However, this not only means more expensive power, more expensive power and more expensive gas derived chemical inputs would damage manufacturing and halt the recent resurgence of manufacturing in the US. I had some hope for the rise of corporate social responsibility in terms of a move away from focusing on just the profit calculation and consideration of the impacts on local community and also the national interest. However, that has merely served as tool for social justice warriors to infiltrate business decisions making, as opposed to any great improvement in a more "conservative direction". And of course the "US conservative" response is to just ban any form of corporate governance that doesn't prioritize shareholder interest. I am intrigued that it kind of takes a "Social libertarian" approach to things like drugs and regulating behavior, but arrives at it through a complete rejection of the fundamental basis for libertarianism (the individual and the stateless society - another abstract utopia). There is also the expectation that a rejection of individualism, would necessarily invite an overbearing nanny state, with authoritarian social policies, combating that would present some difficulty.

This pipecast demonstrates in a gentle and refined way how utterly dictatorial our present political culture has become. (It reminds me in some way of the Aristotelian term of 'phronesis', i. e. judgements should be made in the light of practical experience and individually from case to case, not generally and according to first principles)

The biggest reason why the interwar period (especially after 1929) was different in terms of equilibrium level of employment was that the economy had grown substantially (at least in the United States) on the back of a particular level of credit being available to facilitate industrial expansion and consumption. While the collapse of this is often emphasized when discussing the stock market crash and far more importantly the bank failures from late 1930-1932. What is often neglected is that the nature of this as a bank sector originated crash and the impact of the collapse of the banking sector would have on the reduction of credit, the reduction of the velocity of money and the reduction of the money supply. This was made worse because the US Federal Reserve actually moved to shrink the money supply (Operating of the same mindset as you described guiding the German Central bank in your video on hyperinflation, but in the opposite direction: less demand for money - reduce the money supply) in 1930 and 1931. This left banks further under capitalized and worsened the bank runs and bank failures. Banking centered crashes feature long recovery times, with prolonged and lingering economic dislocation and unemployment. After the Global Financial Crisis (another bank centered economic crash), unemployment did not reach pre-recession levels until 2014. This is a good reason why the banking sector needs more regulation and oversight than other sectors (even if one is predisposed towards less regulation), because the consequences are greater and the time frame for self-correcting is of such a great length as to render waiting it out politically impossible.

A fascinating video and I look forward to reading the essay. As an American, I have long been fascinated by just how much conservatism in America has diverged from the traditional understanding of the philosophy. It of course is reasonable that an American interpretation of such would be more (classical) liberal owing to the more liberal starting point of the American Revolution in contrast to say the Glorious Revolution. However, in the 20th century the formulation of "The Conservative Movement" essentially amounted to marrying economic liberalism (neoliberalism) with puritanical reformism. To be a strong conservative is to merely adhere to both of these elements more strongly and to label everything else as liberalism or socialism. While there are contradictions in most ideologies, I think one can identify the root source of recent political developments within America (the rise of Trumpism for example) with the unavoidable conflict that would arise from combining an economic approach predicated on societal disruption (America experienced a massive wave of outsourcing between the 1980s and 2010s), with a moral approach predicated on faith and thus necessitating the preservation of religious traditions and local communities. Around 2015, I became especially interested in the societal stability element of conservatism, which has been completely lost in American political culture. As factories were closed, communities declined, schools lost their tax base, drug use increased and so did divorce rates. Conservatives bemoaned the decline of the traditional family, yet pointed the finger at social liberalism, at Hollywood, etc, meanwhile turning a blind eye to the most destructive force for all those traditional societal elements, the economic upheavals caused by neoliberalism and especially free trade. This doesn't even get into the disruptive impact of the Iraq War in American politics, which was the project of a third element within the American Conservative umbrella (but also one which has been decisively kicked out - perhaps the one positive development in recent years), the "neoconservatives". A foreign policy built on idealism and utopia (both incompatible with conservative thinking) and a rejection of realism, restraint, fiscal prudence, and societal stability (all core elements of conservative thinking). The preservation of heritage and the resistance to over development has absolutely no bandwidth among so called American Conservatives, and indeed most take the side of economic development, suburban sprawl and car culture, while opposition to these things is mainly isolated to Greens and Socialists, which makes it a left-right dynamic. Just like the British Conservative Party drifted away from conservativism under Thatcher while firmly declaring it to be doing the opposite, the same exact thing happened in the United States under Ronald Reagan and in some ways the initial appeal of Trump (regardless of what happened later) was itself a rejection of Reaganism, even if it didn't overtly say such. There was a key moment from a 2015 primary debate that sticks in my head. A question (designed to out Trump as being "not a conservative") asked the candidates to define conservatism and what it meant to them. Marco Rubio answered and gave the same 30 year old Reaganite "three legged stool" answer of neoliberalism, social conservativism and neoconservatism (without using those terms though). Trump responded that conservatism was about "preserving your country, your job, your society, and your way of life". While I have become harshly critical of Trump, I have always thought that he gave the most correct answer (even if accidentally) to that question in the last 35 years of American politics, and in so doing put a dagger through the heart of academic conservatism in the United States, as it has been constituted. Of course the dangers of leaving it to a populist to make this case, has been on full display the past few years and itself poses a direct threat to core elements of conservativism (rule of law, constitutional governance, restraint of power, and once again societal stability).

The narrator is attributing his own opinions to Oakeshott's, as is evident in his comments on carbon pricing.

The first five minutes consists of a series a trivial truths.

thank you, the world need more this type of video

SCAPEGOATS

GREGORIAN 🇬🇪 PHARMACEA

FIVE...V....JULY...IULIO.....GATES

HUNDREDS....CAPITA...TRIBZL HIDAGE...CENSUS....HEPTARCHY

HUNDREDS....PER CAPITA...TRIBAL HIDAGE....HEPTARCHY

DEC..X....YULETIDE.. 🌲 🤹‍♀️ ...LOG 🔥 PAGANISM

OCT = EIGHT....1X X1....DOUBLE ONE....11...ELF CHAOS

DON'T FORGET THE GREGORY CALENDAR ADOPTION.....1578....TO....1752.....BRITAIN...AND...WEST

Nothing but flames 🔥🔥🔥

Ian, if you're interested, a helpful simplistic explanation of this subject is done by Jesse Alexander entitled "Why Germany Caught Hyperflation in 1921" on RUclips-'The Great War.'

I've always wondered about this subject, Ian. Your presentation cleared up some questions I had. Thanks guy!

Ian, I can discern by your presentation that you are a thinking man-an intellectual, but someone who is easy to understand. That's good! There's nothing more weary than to listen to a person who relishes in his erudition. By the way, brother, you have an impressive library!

25:57, how did the War come about?

18:57, Britain's involvement in the War.

12:35, Russia's role in the War.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, and I'm sympathetic to conservatism, being a Christian, but it seems to me by making such a hard distinction between theory and practice, you've created a sort of trilemma. Either 1. you have some objective (trans-cultural) account of the good, hypothetical or not, in which case you are back to theorizing and abstracting from experience just like those pesky rationalists you are critiquing, the only difference being methodological (starting from first principles vs starting from common experience) or 2. you refuse to engage in this kind of theorizing, in which case whatever normative assertions you might have ought be taken as merely non-cognitive expressivism or perscriptivism (this is what the logical positivists did), or 3. You accept a cultural relativism from which you have no ground to criticize other cultures. 2 and 3 are unacceptable in my opinion. I would hope you think your normative assertions are more than simply expressing distaste, and you would condemn human chattel slavery of all kinds from all time periods, or oppression of women, such as in muslim countries. A.N. Whitehead described speculative metaphysics as a series of test flights, in which we start on the ground of experience and take off into the speculative air, but make sure to come back down again and ground the speculation in our common experience. Theory and practice inform each other, but theory must be seen as an imperfect map of the territory, open to revision in light of new evidence and discovery. I think all of philosophy is like this: Hypotheses from top to bottom. Practice is indeed primary, but that doesn't make theory useless, or necessarily false, or unjustified in informing belief and opinion.