HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июн 2019
- Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Get more:
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Find the podcast:
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/2Shpxw7...
RSS: www.philosophizethis.libsyn.org/
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂
It’s insane to me that this podcast isn’t more popular
Right
I think it's popular as a podcast on podcast platforms but not on youtube, it is well supported on patreon so there is no need to tailor new episodes for mass appeal.
If this kind of content has as much popularity as the latest black pink dance video, the world would be a much better place.
He said it in the video! The global consumers are too disconnected to care about something like this.
And here we are in 2020... Carl is starting to make alot more sense.
And in ‘22…
2022… still on point.
2023, still getting more relevant....
How is it more relevant?
@@dikkie2913because we have a constitution and laws that the government openly violated because of crisis. For example freedom of movement and speech which the government and corporations censored. In other words liberalism is merely an illusion that only works when the government wouldn't be doing those things anyway. Episode 1 about Carl is i think more relevant to that particular observation.
"They (People of Liberal Societies) are so disconnect from what is going on the world, they don't know who they are.. they don't even know who their enemies are... this is a weak society"... This resonated so much in me.
Especially the true believers! I came to CS empirically, and fear that our society as structured is inherently self destructive
Liberal societies are not weak. When it came down to it and fascism threatened liberalism during ww2, fascism was blow out of the water by a large united coalition. During the cold War liberalism won economically over a clear enemy in communism. And now we have lived in a world where the strongest country in all of human history is a liberal democracy. Liberalism is so powerful that it has become culturally hegemonic. The countries that threaten it are isolated and seen with suspicion.
This man called it from the beginning. What a genius. We should have listened.
Carl Schmitt sounds like a historian writing a few decades in the future. The foresight is incredible.
The man thought that liberalism would roll over for fascism.
Fascism has been exterminated. The word is synonymous with "evil" in the modern world.
He really hit the nail on the head.
16:18 “Well there’s the old cliche: *If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything.”*
I am so much smarter then i was 45 minutes ago lol. Thank you sir!
"Liberalism allows the political to operate covertly behind the scenes while politicians gallivant around." Yes. Or as JRR Tolkien put it, "The main mark of modern governments is that we do not know who governs, de facto any more than de jure. We see the politician and not his backer; still less the backer of the backer; or, what is most important of all, the banker of the backer."
And the banker is a jew, of course! See, how it all connects? 😂
Have almost listened to every episode on this podcast. It made my life better.
Wow, I am listening on March, 2021. After covid this sounds prophetic enough
If anything these last two years have proven him very wrong. Trump tried to do what he wanted but the rule of law stopped every attempt he made to undermine liberalism.
Liberalism is a lot more resilient than he thought
LOVE your videos! I studied political science and political theory was my favorite. This is a great refresher and a lot of the times I am learning or thinking of something new or in different angles. Thank you and keep it up!
I adore this. Every episode is pivotal. Thank you Stephen ❤️!
Going to start supporting on patreon - worth it
i wish this was ten hours long.
Well, it seems that we’ve seen the actual emergence of the anti-oxygen movement, since the Cohen-19 that is.
A GREAT PODCAST! THANK U SIR
remarkable work on carl Schmitt. thanks a lot!
I am already utterly disconnected from the world I live in.
Accelerationist what do conservatives want something better?
Accelerationist the generalizing way in which you speak about liberals is suspect. I’m not saying that that you’re conservative though, just asking the question about the other side.
Accelerationist you’re not right nor left, you’re annoying.. crush the left? What are you even saying..
@@nightoftheworld your opinion has no influence, so neither him being a dork
@Accelerationist liberalism are the Left are not the same thing. What is your flavor of accelerationism?
love this episode
2022 and Schmitt is more important than ever.
Thanks Stephen!
Good job! Tank you!
Thank YOU Stephen
In small communities, participation in local government works very well. Read Ralph Nader's The Seventeen Traditions. In big cities? not so much. On the national level? not at all.
Okay, hypothetical alternative system.
A constitutional monarchy with local non-partisan democracy.
So, for example, in the UK, it might look like this.
The king is in charge; he leads the limited (but not quite night watchmen) government either directly or by selecting his own prime minister. The national government takes a proportion of taxes, and its job is to manage external relations and defence and ensure all regions abide by the constitution; the king's government is also constrained by constitutional law.
The UK is then divided into small, largely autonomous regions, like special economic zones. Each zone gets to elect its own mayor and council, no political parties are allowed, and no area is allowed to break the constitution. Other than that, most aspects of day-to-day governance or delegated to these small local governments. However, the king's government can set down instructions and targets for regions to ensure the country develops with a sense of purpose and unity.
Carl Schmitt was right.
The final crisis of identity will show people that IDENTITIES are an ideal, a frozen image of what they think that they want to be. The root of intolerance can be found there. And the root of unhappines. We are everchanging beings. Trying to fosilize ourselves with an IDENTITY is a silly way of mascarading our fear to change and to the unknown. Identity, psycology`s god, is just a reflex of the ignorance of the one identified by it.
And yet you spit in a cup and a computer can tell you what you look like.
“People think they know who they are but really all they are is ignorant and unhappy. If they were brave they’d let something else tell them who they are. Then they don’t have to be cowards anymore.”
And I suppose you’ll be there to make anyone feel bad about not aligning with your idea on who they should be. Good thing nobody cares what you think.
This is the answer to America’s problems.
The podcast's name is very familiar where did you get it from?
Thank you Stephen, for another great episode!
As for these 2 episodes, I must say I find the premise of fascism mind boggling, if I understood corectly what you said. The idea that war is unavoidable and violence is inherent to the human nature, seem now in our modern days, and with the benefit of hindsight, such outrageous things to base your system on. The biggest tragedy for our human race is that these political systems, like fascism and comunism, had to be tried and wreak so much human suffering, for us to get rid of them, but with the price of millions upon millions of lifes.
I can see how liberalism and capitalism are not perfect, but every other alternative has produced so many bloodbaths, while ironically science has thrived under liberal capitalism, making war at the global scale almost impossible, without wiping out the human race. Sure there are still military conflicts going on, but those are isolated, while something like WW II could never happen, because again, ironically, capitalism doesn't allow for something like this, also nukes help, the most real war nowadays is the trading one...
Neither capitalism, nor liberalism have created the nuclear bomb. Science has thrived in the third Reich and the USSR as well. Liberal capitalism will inevitably lead to war as well, because a) war is great business, b) the economic competitor or threat has to be weakened or destroyed, c) it has to expand and conquer access to resources. The difference is that liberal capitalism lies about the reasons for war. The disengaged people will be taken advantage of, as you see now.
LMAO war being unavoidable is mind boggling to you?! What world are you living in. Besides, you realise there are different forms warfare (read 4th gen warfare), the physical is simply one realm. We are living under psychological warfare convincing us to give up without ever putting up a fight for our survival.
What an incredibly naive comment.
@@user-ce2le8ml9y
it's literally the type of person carl schmitt was talking about,
unironically scape goating fascism and communism (which were descendants of socialism who had real philosophy and reasons for what they came about),
and then sneakily praising capitalism and liberalism as "lesser evils" EVEN THOUGH they literally played just as much of a hand in WW1 and WW2 as fascism and communism did,
what a fxkinhg genius 😂
@@niceguy2527 yes sir! social engineering is a type of conflict between people with real implications on people's lives and lively hood.
Liberal societies failed to get rid pf The Sovereign, and Fascism. Very interesting point.
Liberal societies have a true rule of law that limits the power of any government. Schmitt was incredibly wrong when he labeled these systems as just pieces of paper. He even fails to realize these limits to the state existed even before liberalism and were present in many monarchies. It's all just to justify nazism lack of these systems. If you pretend that rule of law is fake then you can just make up any justification for why your society doesn't have it.
The problem of modern liberalism is that it has become storyless and technocratic-it left patriotism behind as though it was toxic, therefore leaving the story making to the zealots.
Based
Show me your enemy and I will show you your friends - to me seems quite Hegelian
Terrifying stuff.
Liberalism's deceit when it comes to the sovereign is more relevant than ever. The issue is that Schmitt wasn't able to have the foresight, through really no fault of his own, that his warning about consumption would go unheeded, mainly because the vast technological advances brought to the West have turned it into a consumer's paradise, where the individual has chosen to fully embrace this ever evolving pursuit of pleasure.
Heidegger was more prescient with his prediction of future consumer matrices warping society, and blurring the lines between reality and simulation. Heidegger was probably more pessimistic, as I don't think he truly believed this technological advancement would be stopped.
I think Marx also lurks in the background, as the core-periphery distinction formulated by world systems theorists in the 70s is also very much relevant. Partisan arguments aside, it is a fact that the consumer societies of the West enjoy broad benefits due to the underdevelopment of the rest of the world. Even if you believe it is just an essential quality of these "backward" countries to stay underdeveloped, it is no secret that the West takes full advantage of this through value differentials. When the time does come, the Western consumer will take an identity when his way of living is threatened, especially when it comes to cheap commodities. In fact, I think you're seeing this play out with the recent upheavals globally, as the world outside of the West seeks a more multipolar mode.
We are in for interesting times ahead, likely to be extremely tumultuous. In that sense, Schmitt will be continuously vindicated.
Pro anti CO2 is a political position now absurdly.
democracy ✖️ emergency 🟰 fascism
Liberalism is built on the friend enemy distinction, there is no contradiction. Liberalism is intolerant to other political ideologies, and within the liberal political system it's a constant fight between different interests groups to wield power and enact policies they want. Liberal societies are tolerant to things within the overton window in the moment, and intolerant to thing outside the overton window. The overton window which is created through internal conflict, for the society to decide the range of acceptability, the range of acceptable diversity of opinion and action.
On the idea of depoliticization of people within liberal societies, this is infinitely more true within authoritarian systems like fascism or marxist-leninism. Liberal societies are built on different interests groups vying for power, this politicizes groups to pursue their interests or values. Under authoritarian systems, there is no way for interests groups not aligned with the ruling power to pursue their interests leading to total depoliticization.
Marxism and fascism are supposedly the two biggest opponents of liberal democracy. But fascism isn't a real political ideology it is just a temporary state of exception when liberal democracy is threatened by marxism. Nazi germany fascist italy and spain all came to power because liberals gave power to a caesar because they were scared of marxists taking power during the crisis (great depression). Juntas during the cold war took power in brazil, argentina, chile, korea, indonesia, taiwan in opposition to marxism. The US and other liberal democracies were able to get through the crisis of the great depression, because there wasn't a significant marxist threat (enemy) to fight against, without the marxist threat there was no justification for the need of a caesar. Once the crisis is over, there is no justification for the power of the sovereign. Germany and italy were forced to liberalize, but the juntas and spain liberalized by themselves.
The remaining non liberal nations in the world, are countries that never developed a liberal consciousness within the populace like the middle eastern nations and some african nations, or marxists like china vietnam cuba or venezuela. Or the special case of russia, who is a dying former superpower that gave power to a caesar to distract them from russia's terminal demographic and economic collapse.
Carl s was right
21:29 "some might replay to that and say: well, that is the very definition of fascism, to say that the path to world peace 'oh we just need to get everyone to agree with me, then we'll be fine'"
Sadly some people might unironically say this. But to think this is what fascism is, is utterly idiotic. Under that definition of Fascism, Liberalism and Communism is Fascism as they are the ideologies most famous for wanting to conquer the world to create a utopian and peaceful world, liberalism with their notion of free trade, free markets, international law and democracy being imposed on the whole world, communism with their world wide workers revolution.
When did Mussolini or Hitler ever argue for more than becoming regional great powers? When did they ague for pushing their values on every single corner of the world? This is pure projection by Liberals and Communists.
This is relevant to the 2020 reactions to wuhanvirus.
Also. Schmidt thought Liberal societies were weak and wouldn't have anything to motivate them to fight.
Hitler thought the same thing which is why he thought little about declaring war on America. America won. They were both wrong.
Hitler also thought the Soviet Russia was a decrepit state needing just the front door kick in & then the rest of the structure would fall in on itself.
Soviet Russia was weaker than Germany and nearly collapsed innthe early stages in the war. But they fought viciously on because they knew they were in a war of extinction with the Nazis. That and American war material and the fear of being shot by their own commanders if they retreated. No ideology involved just survival instinct.
111 likes!
I see r/acc is up to their usual shit
he based,,,his theory on the basis that one desires to to loose life over the interest of his/her tribe. In this view, self indulgent is such a bad thing. The CRITICAL ERROR he makes is that the TRIBE and its attitude (to be in conflict) is not why humans have joined the tribe...in the state of nature, one would have joined a tribe to increase their chances of getting food, and not being eaten while sleep...basically the tribe only increases the chances of survival of its members...this means, to an individual..the tribe is not natural either...survival is.. and in this, SELF indulgent is the reason why humans decided on creating states...once life is gone, one would be uninterested on human affairs, as a wooden table to the state of a jungle...every single rule, every single state, every single politcal movement or idea stops well before self indulgent ( as a expansion of desire to survive or live the longest and the best)...being alive for any one person, and the odds of it, is far remote from even winning the lottery...it's an unbelievable gift to be alive...you would do anything to have that continued before it is shut for eternity and nothing further to be shown...in this, there is no reason for anyone to give in to any particular collective, if by doing that it decreases your chances of survival....in short self indulgent is actually a far more important and natural virtue to a human than tribalism.
Oh my gosh, that twist! That hes an unrepentant antisemite.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Schmitt was an acute observer and analyst of the weaknesses of liberal constitutionalism and liberal cosmopolitanism. But there can be little doubt that his preferred cure turned out to be infinitely worse than the disease."
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also says there is no difference between men and women sooooooo
But in all seriousness, if one accepts the Schmittian premise, then the value judgment on one basis over another within each text that is written or each position that is taken is always going to be bias and in favor of whatever proclivities and sensibilities that person or platform would like to promote or espouse. The notion that there can be little doubt that a preferred cure is worse than the disease assuming that he is whole heartedly in favor of what the Stanford Philosophy has deemed him to be. Again, the beauty of liberalism is to conceal timeless contestations and package them into a "neutral" or "well this has this many studies and this many scholars/experts have declared" which may be true but may also be that those particular sources are people who happen to favor one ideology or position over another. Again, the friend enemy distinction when it comes to preference.
Empires have existed from the beginning of time and they continue to exist in this current time, we just use better concealed language. Was WWII a horrendous war, the war to end all wars (ironically the Korean war started almost immediately after WWII), yes but was that because liberalism was so much better than all the other's or was it because 1. the winners get to determine what is horrible and what is not (the sovereign is he who decides the exception) 2. the industrial revolution permitted people to advance weaponry that produced horrific outcomes but would have easily been a war or conflict nonetheless 3. People view the atrocities that occurred and yes that certainly is the case but people point to fascism as the boogie man (and for good reason) but things like communism are widely accepted or at least entertained in public today and communism produced a level of suffering that the world has never seen before, easily trumping the amount of death that fascism has produced (communism happened to be a winner in WWII and still persists to this day)
When one first listens to Schmidt there is a tendency to agree with him, sort of an Ayn Rand effect. I think the farther you go into his philosophies the more critical you'll become of his assumptions. Schmidt doesn't really seem to entertain the idea that a political identity can be built upon the principles of liberal democracy up to a point. If one had to say what the American identity was, I think it would be fair to say it is the focus on individual rights and liberties. Other things can be reduced to trivial if we have our individual rights and liberties.
schmitt thinks just because liberal democracy sometimes enter a state of exception, when liberals give power to a caesar or a sovereign. the state of emergency should last forever. liberal states where different interests fight is better than fascist states where there can be no opposition to the one party state. fascist spain, and the military dictatorships in brazil chile argentina indonesia korea and taiwan came to power due to a communist threat, but all liberalized after they killed the commies, and the liberals eventually demanded power back. what is the purpose of a caesar without a communist threat, the US and other liberal democracies were able to weather the biggest crisis in modern history the great depression without fascism, because there wasn't a serious marxist threat.
This doesnt make much sense to me. On the one hand he said liberalism is just disguised authoritarianism, but on the other hand he said that liberalism produces people that are not interested in political discourse and fall for every random political direction???
Also it is funny that out of everyone Carl Schmitt does fall for facism, which in itself is a misleading pseudo emergency, which he critiqued liberalism for. So authoritarian facism was the political direction he followed even though that every negative aspect of it he attributed to liberalism.
And last one if you are authoritarian you HAVE an identity, because you don't accept anything other to enter your worldview. So saying that liberals are on the one hand authoritarian AND simultaneously have no identity does also not make much sense to me. Not mentioning the arbitrariness of facism.
I don't want to sound disrespectful, but to me it sounds like good old conservative ranting against the status quo
Nice name.
You seem to be viewing this from a liberal perspective to begin with and misunderstand Schmitt from the get go. The picture is painted quite clearly in the video. Let me know if this perspective helps. Fascism is authoritarian with a stated goal and value system. The fascist can be be any type of man, whether it be italian, british, spanish, indian or japanese. Fascism is a political system which allows in groups to identify and battle out groups they are in conflict with. It is led by a strong leader, the katechon, as it is necessary to have quick decisive change that can adapt to real threats in real time similar to a commander on a battlefield.
Liberalism on the other hand is authoritarian, but pretends it is not. The authoritarianism of liberalism comes about through its refusal to allow friend-enemy distinction to take place, instead focusing on silencing those who would differentiate between friend and enemy by saying they are acting impolite in this political system, that they are not acting rationally and quietly as gentlemen should. Schmitt’s critique nails this, stating that this is the antithesis of politics as it does not allow genuine conflict to resolve itself. What liberalism morphs into is a one world multi-cultural government where in groups and out groups are to be ignored as if they dont exist while the desire for wealth is paramount (liberal+capitalist democracies put wealth above all else). This creates weak societies as schmitt claims. The people become more interested in cosmopolitanism and whatever new tv show or product is put in front of them rather than legitimate politics: conflicts between friends and enemies.
Perhaps you do not see this reality as you belong to the winning group of the liberal society, it is the liberal state and its supporters against the illiberals. Of course it is just “conservative ranting” to you because you don’t understand their perspective. Carl Schmitt is one of the best political philosophers to come about in hundreds of years, don’t just assume his ideas are “conservative ranting” when he has nothing to do with so called conservatism.
@Accelerationist True, but conservative is being used by them in the liberal sense, that of "liberals and conservatives" in a liberal political system. There is a fake conservative movement within the liberal polity that is only opposed to leftist economic policy and are in fact the largest liberals of them all. True conservatives are really just fascists or of a similar ideology, as it is the only one that can possess the leviathan like qualities necessary to maintain and protect a people/state.
@Accelerationist Who are reactionaries?
@Accelerationist brah, I'm just coming across this kind of stuff and I'm hungry for more. You seem to know a lot, can you share me more material?
What a shor sighted view. No ideology will ever be as strong as the idealization of consumption. Again, the problem here are ideas, as you can see as the root of both words. Everyone thinks he got it right, but nobody assumes his own responsability
If you liked this - look up Nick Fuentes on RUclips (RUclips doesn't want you to watch see this)
Oh wow, this makes me want to be even more apolitical. Carl Schmitt's thing seams to me another propaganda philosophy to justify aggressive military politics, he goes from being involved in the political process to dying for your country quick.
@Accelerationist you'll be surprised how your beliefs will change in the next 10 years. Nothing is worth dying for. Anyone who says otherwise just uses you.
@Veganahtsee What's up with that? Who are you duyng for?
@@niceguy2527 Is life just a video game to you? Why do you separate life beings into layers? If you think some people can be above others or above animals that's problematic, that's how slave owners would think.
Not an argument. None of you are going to agree because you have fundamentally different values. So you all talk past each other and insult the values. You haven't at all proven that Schmitt's arguments don't follow the values of government honesty in the face of threats from foreign beliefs. Being a big-brained-centrist is cool for now, but being a loser bug capitalist with no coherent worldview will leave you rudderless and ironically USED by an exploitative neoliberal plutocracy. Your being used. However, to believe as "Accelerationist" does that you must be a willing martyr is ridiculous to force on people. If you want them more accepting of your worldview, or trying to blackpill them on their own making such high demands is tough. You may die for your family but you dying for abstract fascist principles would help nobody. (That is if your were willing to do it. I see no evidence of it.) Sacrifice is admirable, but it should not be a purity test. If you haven't acted in a fashion for which death is the consequence of your views, then don't demand others do the same. (Although Ed L is no great loss)
@@EdLrandom Ayn Rand? Lol