The Intellectual Roots of Wokeness with James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian (Ep.15)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2020
- If you like what I do consider supporting me at colemanhughes.org/
If you like what you hear, please subscribe and share bit.ly/CwCsubscribe
My latest episode features James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian. James is a mathematician, writer, and founder of New Discourses. He is the author of a new book called ‘Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity’. Peter is a philosopher, a professor at Portland State University, and the author of ‘A Manual for Creating Atheists’ and ‘How to Have Impossible Conversations’.
During this episode, we talk about critical theory, postmodernism and how these conspired to build the foundation of social justice ideology as we know it today. We talk about the ways in which social justice has departed from its parent ideologies, and much more.
FOLLOW COLEMAN
RUclips - bit.ly/38kzium
Twitter - bit.ly/2rbAJue
Facebook - bit.ly/2LiAXH3
Website -colemanhughes.org
FOLLOW JAMES
Twitter - / conceptualjames
Website - newdiscourses.com/
FOLLOW PETER
Twitter - / peterboghossian
BOOKS BY PETER & JAMES
A Manual for Creating Atheists - amzn.to/3614DU5
How to Have Impossible Conversations Co-authored by James Lindsay - amzn.to/2RRGUxB
Cynical Theories - Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay - amzn.to/3z2Y3II
#Wokeness #Postmodernism #CriticalRaceTheory #ColemanHughes
![The Problem of Race with Glenn Loury [Bonus Episode]](/img/1.gif)
I am reminded of this wonderful quote:
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”
― George Orwell
The 'humble' intellectual is fond of quoting the phrase 'the more I know,the more I realise how little I know' but doesn't really believe it,false humility !
@@busking6292 Only if you look at the world from a unconsciously murderous marxist lense.
And you are obviously no intellectual, are ya?
@@murraymcgregor7829 unintentionally hilarious, Einstein!
Or people that Believe they are intelligent makeing up stupidness and calling it smart!😂
Anything with James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian should be required viewing, listening, and reading. The same goes for Coleman Hughes.
Their stuff should be taught in all schools.
@@BlahBlahPoop617 whereas we're on the way (if not already there) to the opposite being true
They should be enforced training in university to counter the critical race theory and grievance studies.
@@NPC-st7zv where does the organisation to make this happen come from? Particularly given the analysis by Haidt on political leaning in higher education. Where does the traction come from to start.
Lindsay doesn’t even know how to pronounce Max Weber. I’m on board with the critiques of woke but these guys are punching above their weight class, academically speaking.
55:38 "Historically we have had a problem with generating fair access to 'the house'. But why in the world would you want to tear it down?".
Gentlemen I can help you.
I've spent much of my childhood and adult working life in the developing world, and also married someone from there. She's as bewildered by this 'don't use the master's tools' perspective as me (but I'm less surprised by it because while she did STEM I went into social science and was exposed to the Woke canon).
The answer is these people CLEARLY did not come from undeveloped places. They have known a world where things work, and I mean the 'simple', but in fact hugely important things: they have NOT known life where the roads were not paved, sanitation was up to you, communications and energy infrastructure had not been established, where police were routinely bribed... etc... etc...
If you have never known a world where this is the norm, you would have NO concept of what tearing it down really means. We have been spoiled, by the hot showers, traffic lights, phone and internet service, garbage collections, off-season fresh vegetables, lack of polio...
But everyday people wake up and tip a bucket over their head for a shower, travel dusty, unpaved roads and burn garbage rather than having 'systemic' garbage collection. And this brings me to my conclusion:
at the heart of this perspective is softness. Softness masquerading as hardness. But it's soft as soft can be.
It's the equivalent of a man buying a posh coffee at a nice cafe in New York, with beans that tell a real story of coffee farmers on the other side of the world grinding through all of these difficulties... But rather than going there to document their story, he decides the 'hardest', 'realest' thing he could do is tweet about how the store mascot is wearing a stereotypical poncho or whatever. It's a cheap, safe, easy way of looking like one takes on the hard things. It's a totally non-costly signal.
TL;DR those who talk about tearing down 'the house' around them grew up never knowing what a failed state is. And those who 'bravely' write about 'systemic' things are too soft and narcissistic to go where real systemic failure is normal life.
Bravo and well spoke. The irritants and the itch beneath any skin know the truth of this. The issue is connecting that up with whatever measure of humility it takes to come clean. Once upon a time I battled in a third world country just to keep the reality of its microbes out of my system. That was a real lesson. Only a beginning. The long road doesn't end at the first rest stop. It is easy to forgive ignorance admitted. Next to impossible to accept it as righteous dogma.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”- G.M. Hopf
I agree, but it is a culture of envy at the end of the day. They want to live in that house and if I can't have it no one should be able to have it. They may not need that particular house for themselves (so why would they care) or they assume there will always be another house waiting for them.
Agreed, the Woke are like babies smashing their rattler just to see what makes it rattle.
Wow, wow, wow. What a comment.
What always impresses me with James, Peter and Helen is their relentless expertise with the actual subject matter.
You ask them "where did this idea come from?" or "why is this a concept?" and they can tell you... Deeply... From bottom to top... With citations and references... From memory...
They just know it all.
How can we thank them enough for laying out 200 years of social philosophy with its real implications??
Absolutely. All of that plus their ability to speak and write as eloquently as they do is truly invaluable. Only time will tell if we are able to thank and recognise them as we should.
... and, they're entertaining! Solid humor.
They barely scratch the surface. And in fact they accept the very roots of the ideology, take for instance the parading scepticism they communicate. It's that very scepticism, from Descartes, Hume, and Kant, that is the intellectual roots of wokeness.
@Chanred yeah...thats quite a piece
@Chanred Im not surprised that a site called "Liberal Currents" is not giving this book a good reveiw..who would have thought??? No i will think for myself and agree with James, Paul and Helen. Most normal thinking people can see through the manipulation from the left and will understand what these 3 brilliant people are saying.
very glad to see there is a next generation of Thomas Sowell aware and alive. Gives me much hope for the future of the country. Great work. You are not only a wise voice but a brave man for sure. Thank you for taking up the fight. Hope many young minds hear your voice.
It's a crime this was only 90 minutes.
Ikr! I could listen to them all day, for days 😊
Agreed. I propose a punishment of 10 days of community service. Namely, making more podcast.
Lindsay on Rogan 3 hours.
It's a crime that not many people will hear/understand this.
@@FirstNameLastName-gm3lu We need to share it everywhere we can.
I am not an intellect but at 60yrs of age I love to listen to these informative discussions when I'm driving or farting around the house. Thank you for sharing your grey matter with me. You really are educating this old fuddy duddy Tin of Peas in Ireland
Subscribed!
Coleman you have the most intellligent discussions on the internet.
I already had Cynical Race Theories on hold at the library, but I was 15th in line for it. After watching this, I decided to go ahead and buy it along with the How to Have Impossible Conversations book. Thanks for making such a complex topic easier to understand!
The audio edition is also available on Scribd.
Both great books, and with the purchase you support these wonderful and important people.
HTHIC is fantastic!
@@georger64 That's exactly why I'm buying it.
*Think it's just called 'Cynical Theories' (for those who might be looking it up too)
Some SJWs try to be kind, but the language they use just incites and implies meanness. I’m a gay dude and I believe in a traditional sexual ethic (but I don’t force that on others. I just share my perspectives).
I had a conversation with an LGBT “ally” about belief and such. She said something like, “I’m not saying you’re wrong. Just that you’re homophobic. It is what it is.”
They redefine words right and left and try to de-escalate the deep-seated meaning we have around these words. It’s manipulative. I’ve seen it in other ways, like when any discomfort or dissent around critical race theory arises, they just explain it away as white fragility and internalized white supremacy.
I hate this as well. I remember talking to one of my white SJW friends recently and I was telling her that I think the racism thing is definitely overblown and while that racism exists race should not define us. She basically suggested that since I wasn't a white male she wasn't going to get angry at me but that the system is so bad that I've internalized racism without even knowing it. At one point she even told me that I should look into "indigenous medicine" to help control my Type 1 Diabetes instead of insulin which is "made for Western bodies". I think at that point I realized I was talking to a crazy person.
Alex Leaud Oh heavens. What are we coming to??? That reminds me of when I saw someone change her tone with a friend of mine and she said, “Oh that’s right. I forgot you were a person of color.”
You can't win with these idiots. That's why the only solution is to fully speak your mind to make them wet their pants.
Alex Lindstrom It’s a mind-boggling phenomenon. What I say is that it is the thought of empathy without the existence of actual empathy. Which is what makes this mind virus such a dangerous thing. Empathy or a longing for empathy is an extremely strong emotion and when one thinks that is what they are conveying makes it nearly impossible to break.
When you cannot call someone out no matter what they are doing based on their “identity.” When you are no longer what you are (gay, trans, any ethnic background and anything else) if your opinion does not match a certain opinion (ala “we don’t need black and brown bodies that don’t have black and brown voices”). That is very dangerous. Not only that but people are actually hostile with these beliefs in their minds. If you see ACTUAL independent journalists at some of these protests and riots, the BLM and Antifa likes spew terrible things all the time (racist, homophobic, violent, etc...).
I mean, it’s 2020. You’re a racist if you’re a white person that adopts black children from an orphanage from a 3rd world country. Giving them a better life and loving them like they came from your own womb. Anti-racism is by the very definition is racism (it’s exactly what people like MLK said exists and it is the same problem on the different side of the coin). It is the the thought of empathy that has intentionally by some and unintentionally by others become the exact opposite of empathy (it’s a combination of pity and actual racism).
Most of it is just white fragility. It's your own projection. How come white people get offended at terms like "white privilege", while black people do not? Clearly it isn't about the words but the persons listening to them. But facts don't care about anyone's feelings, so it really doesn't matter if a sjw is mean or not, they are still factually correct. Also, you're a fool if you think what you said only applies to sjws. Conservatives are the main ones who call people "victims" or "racist" over disagreements.
I don't think I can make strides with certain people "on the left." I tried to tell my friend about CRT and they wouldn't acknowledge it's relationship with BLM and Marxism and how it's everywhere, etc. They're response to my observations: "I'm sure that's how you would see it. It's easy to connect the dots to fit your version of reality." I tried to say it's not "my version" or "my perception," and that you can read what is explicitly written by critical race theorists themselves... The literature is out there. He wouldn't. We can't even agree on what is true. He said most things are perceptions and history is written by the winners. I don't think I can be friends with someone who doesn't believe that there is an objective truth. I'd like to just accept that they're wrong and closed-minded, but I don't think I can.
You can't easily defeat motivated reasoning. The key is to expose how the proponents don't apply that thinking to themselves. Arguments are advanced by evaluation and weighting against relevance.
It’s fun to read your comment because I can completely relate to your frustration haha. A lot of the times I really have to take my time to figure out how to effectively and politely reactie to things like “I’m sure that’s how you could see it” and “its easy to connect the dots to.... etc”. I’m starting to see actually how much intellect, time and knowledge it takes to effectively grapple with all this social/political and philosophical matter.
@@youpvanligten5788 yes, it's awful. I often say just because you don't see it that way - doesn't make you correct. Especially when they refuse to read the literature. This person is also especially bullheaded... And says things like "they don't get info from youtube." Well... Sorry you only follow what the MSM or AP says. No wonder you're lost 😂
@@emilyk.5664 "I don't get information from youtube" is a really dumb rebuttal. So he'll watch CNN, but not if it's on youtube. He'll read Robin DiAngelo but won't listen to her speak on youtube? As to your first point - when something is in print and it's easily verifiable but your "friend" refuses to believe it - that's a religion. You can't reason with that so don't waste your time. John McWhorter had a great interview a few weeks ago on Sam Harris's podcast and one of his main points, and apparently what his new book is about, is how we just have to let these people be crazy on their own and have adult conversations without them. That's not to say we should do what they do and refuse to debate - just that we have to keep moving forward. If they want to leave their seat at the table empty that's going to be on them.
@@emilyk.5664 I feel your pain, and sense of alienation. Today reminds me of the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" - where all of your friends are being taken over, one by one, by this massive Hive Culture. Please continue to fight the good fight, and collect actual data and images to counteract the delusions.
Love James's story about moms taking away/throwing something away if kids fight over it. My parents, grandparents were same way!
I appreciate a host who is every bit as smart as his guests, but doesn't feel the need to interject every time his guests say something he already knows, but may be new to the watching audience. Having that intellectual confidence is refreshing and makes the content so much easier to digest.
Coleman interruption is a relief for me, coz James is speaking too fast (or maybe his tone is too flat) and the concepts are too many that Coleman helps to slow things down or my brain would be dead (actually did for several times)
That's a great point!
A great trip here, a joy to listen in and learn from these three guys. A golden era of free, gracious teaching and education. Let's revel in it whilst we're free so to do.
Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian are crucial in the fight for rational thought against ideological dogmatism. Thank you so much!
Please support New Discourses with with me. I have a bad feeling they might be driven underground into a kind of resistance operation. What, me paranoid?
@@paigemccormick6519 They are just building up. Just wait until the wokish-dictionary is finished. It's a great project and my go-to-website for everything around this topic. I've told many friends about it who educated themselves about the coded language
@@DonBelial Yes, I know it. My point is they might come under serious attack. I think we should 'build up" their resources along with their celebrity. I hope "Cynical Theories" does a lot for both. Thanks for your comments.
After watching the presidential debate, this is nice lol
This is off-topic but I can't resist -- you have an awesome dog! Greetings to yours from mine 🐕♥️🐕
@@zxyatiywariii8 lol thanks. That big goofy dog brings me great joy 😁
Amen man
@@zxyatiywariii8 bless your comment. So wholesome, haha.
After that debate, beheading videos are nice
James lindsay is just a beast
I thought I was an intellectual, and now I realize that I know nearly nothing about philosophy and any other topic presented here. It's still interesting, but over my head. Nevertheless, it makes me want to learn more about these issues and gives me something to look forward to. Thank you Coleman and friends!
I found myself stopping the podcast and looking up certain definitions, and it simply made me aware of how much I do not know. It is very humbling indeed, and engaged my mind in the search for truth and self examination
Watch Mike Nayna's 3-episode documentary on RUclips of the neo-Marxist student takeover at Evergreen State College in 2017 (James, Peter, and Helen were all involved in the doc).
It's all real footage of faculty first being indoctrinated with Critical Race Theory - then tensions rise as the students begin to hold struggle sessions for the administration. Then riots.
It's fucking nuts.
It opened my eyes. Please watch and share.
ruclips.net/video/FH2WeWgcSMk/видео.html
so many bad stifling ideas from Europe- Critical Theory, Fascism, Communism- stop importing from Europe (except for war refugees). Thats really how you stop white supremacy.
@Earthian I felt the same way listening to this! So much that I don't know. I'm intrigued and want to know more.
Totally agree! Feel same way listening to Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying podcast/livestreams.
"Intellectual" and "wokeness" don't go together. They shouldn't even be in the same book together.
On the contrary, only in intellectual circles can such ideas survive and thrive. It‘s terribly easy to theorize, the question is how does it all play out in practice.
I don't think Critical (Race) Theory is entirely wrong, it has a point, its just severely incomplete. It zooms in at one small aspect of social dynamics (institutional power and priviledge) and pretends to be the whole picture.
@@swordierre9341 Well said. The concept of Intersectionality does have some truth to it. But there's no way to accurately "Map the Margins" the way Kimberlé Crenshaw believes she can do. We're all too unique, and we're all a mélange of Nature and Nurture which can't ever be quantified into nice, neat strata of Oppressed vs Oppressors.
None of us are born as "blank slates" to be molded by Societal Constructionism. We're all born with different gifts and different challenges. But the CRT proponents (many of whom are wealthy enough to have been able to attend college!) are ignoring one of the biggest differences: *_CLASS_*
I'm primarily Indigenous, and I was born in a bad neighborhood; but suppose I coulda chosen to be one of these:
1. Being born Black, to a wealthy person like Oprah or Obama;
2. Being born White, to a poor person
I'd choose #1 instantly. I wonder how many people would choose #2?
Class is the one "Intersection" which is studiously ignored by people like Robin DiAngelo, Al Sharpton, and Colin Kaepernick. An awful lot of "social justice warriors" come from middle to upper class parents (like "Little Red Rioting Hood" Clara Kraebber, whose parents are millionaires).
Black or White or Brown or Yellow or Red. . . whatever race someone is, there's a LOT of privilege in Green 💵💵💵
@zxy atiywariii Class is an obvious one, although usually intersectional thought includes it ins its rubric (despite disproportionally focusing on race and gender)
Imo, there are far more glaring blindspots in intersectional thought. For one they ignore the privilege's that matter much more. They disregard-
Privilege of Beauty - they think beauty is entirely a societal construct. And since society is a Hetero-normative, white-supremacist, patriarchy, they tend to blend in Privilege of Beauty with White Privilege. A huge blindspot given that beauty is actually fairly universal and id say makes up a large chunk of someone's privilege.
Privilege of high Intelligence - they tend to disregard a genetic basis for intelligence, and hence believe "intelligence" is entirely a byproduct of all your aforementioned privileges.
But more broadly their biggest blindspot is that they believe that Power itself is the thing that creates privileges. That the reason that some people fail and others succeed, that certain things are treasured and others disliked, and that individuals value what they value is because the societal structure(the power) at one point or another wishfully made it so. That all systems, thus hierarchies, and thus outcomes are ‘planned’. What's dangerous is that the theory linguistically and rhetorically sounds coherent. Its sounds so clever and rhymes so well, that the over-educated are willing to selectively deny and rewrite reality in order to paint it true.
I wouldnt read Titiania McGrath then
When I was growing up my parents taught me that good manners demanded that you do not discuss certainly things in polite company. Those certain things boiled down to the "big three" - Politics, Sex, and Religion. The reason was that it was a sure way to start an argument if you brought those topics up in places where they did not belong. That was not to say there would never be a time and place to discuss those things but there was most definitely a time and a place NOT to bring those topics up in casual conversation with polite company. Fast forward to today and what are the main topics of conversation everywhere you go? That's right - Politics, Sex, and Religion. Somewhere along the way we forgot to keep our opinions to ourselves and all people want to do these days is push their opinions about politics, sex, and religion. Add to that the speed at which we are able to communicate to vast numbers of people and the results speaks for themselves.
Colman Hughes and James Lindsay together is a dream come true. Keep on speaking against the hysteria!
This was great. These two never fail to be a fun duo in interviews.
Watching this gives me hope in humanity. Thank you, kind sirs.
Coleman you are fantastic. I'm always impressed with your patience, balance, and insightful way of thinking. You bring alot of intelligence and consistent professional tone to conversations. Thank you for having James and Peter on, I enjoyed it.
Really enjoyable conversation. James and Peter (and Helen) have a way of unpacking these ideas in a way that's accessible to any intellect. I always make sure to have content like this playing in the car when I pick up the kids.
Coleman...you are & will continue to be a powerful voice for decency, discussion & reason.
You will become a strong strong voice for the future of politics In America. Keep being awesome!
Lindsey & Boghossian are excellent.
3's a company of great thinkers.
I have had a similar experience in my classes where we studied Foucault, hegemony, etc. I felt stupid because I did not fully understand it and it was so hard to engage with because the professors accepted it as fact. Looking back, I realize it was the class and the material that was flawed and was not set up for intellectual development.
Same story here in latinoamerica. It´s really sad. They had destruyed social and humanity faculties.
Same in the UK , with me it kinda backfired cause all of the sudden I realised that all these ideas were indeed recycled and ideological in itself , not at all the absolute truth
Same here in Canada and this was almost twenty years ago. I couldn't understand why this was being taught to me as fact rather than the teacher's political perspective.
Unfortunately, metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology are words people go their whole lives never hearing. If people understood the history of these arguments CRT would never survive. It's no coincidence that philosophy is not taught in high school, and any mention is in a negative context.
Foucault has entirely infected the Historical profession. I'm a grad student, and every history book 'in vogue' deals with Foucault.
I like to call him Fuckalt.
This podcast was firey and mostly peaceful!
OK, I'm gonna have to get Jim's most recent book. I didn't even mind a little bit that he did 80% of the talking here, because everything he said had such incredible explanatory power. I'm a dilettante in this field, at best, and yet was able to follow easily because he understands and can explain the ideas so thoroughly.
His most recent Rogan interview (2 or 3 hours) is amazing also.
@Chanred Get out of your little bubble. 'Liberal currents'....really? Take your own advice and research some different viewpoints yourself. Then you might actually be able to think for yourself.
Jim's book (with Helen) is excellent Dan. I got it recently and have only started....can't wait to get into it.
Postmodernism: Nothing is Objectively True (TM).
Logical people everywhere: Then Postmodernism isn't true.
Postmodernism: *Surprised Pikachu Face*
Lol
they covered that in the conversation. Postmodernists believe that it's all about politics and power, they don't believe in truth so that criticism means nothing to them. The closest thing to truth in their view is whatever society accepts, so they just push any narrative they want and it becomes "true" if they can coerce people to accept it.
Not quite. They have been aware of this inherent contradiction since early on, it's not a new observation to them. They hand wave it away with a superior smugness, as an already well debunked criticism which is not worth their time to rehash again. Except that easy dismissal is accepted only by their fellow adherents; they haven't actually made a solid case that's convincing to anybody else, they've just artificially designated it as irrelevant and discredited (read: inconvenient and best ignored).
For another example of this dynamic, if certain 3rd/4th wave feminists (of any gender) say something like "Men are inherently oppressive, it's in their genes", and then somebody (of any gender) objects to this stereotyping, the former heaves a sigh and posts #notallmen, as if pulling out that hashtag just automatically made the stereotyping disappear, or as if this is a shortcut reference to an overwhelmingly convincing line of reasoning which they don't have patience to repeat now, but which would automatically invalidate any criticism if they did. Except if you press on, it's not such a strong line of reasoning, other than to their own already convinced and biased peers.
(The referenced line of argument is usually based on the idea that the one challenging, if male, is only weakly and defensively protesting their own personal innocence and has no larger point about the problems of stereotyped thinking and overgeneralization, and 'obviously' when they talk about "men" they don't really mean "all men", the few exceptions just don't need to be mentioned. But if you were to say "women are bad mathematicians", they would understand the stereotyping immediately and not find #notallwomen very unconvincing. It's not a good faith argument, it's a technique for shallowly dismissing real discussion).
@@zephsmith3499 This was very eye-opening. So how do we allow the discussion to be heard in that scenario with the "not all men"? Because I know that I have certainly used that before and in the past, I have reverted to generalizations of men.
@@abbeynoel6088 My personal approach is to include the word "some" or "a few" or "many" (depending on which I believe is true, after a brief internal reflection).
So I might say "Some Trump voters seem to worship the ground he walks on", or "Some libertarians have no concern about the need for government to restrain the power of huge corporations today" or "some feminists consider gender to be a regrettable set of role invented by the patriarchy". Or even "Some women have strong mood swings during menopause", to choose something more controversial to say (even tho objectively true). I think it's better to add the "some" if that's what you mean.
I find it problematic to use an unqualified category (like "men" or "Democrats" or whatever), to suggest a broad brush; then to fall back on "I didn't say ALL men" (or whatever) when challenged. It strikes me as an underhanded tactic, even if engaged in somewhat unconsciously (that is, I do not mean that everybody who uses that tactic thinks out the full dynamics of it and then consciously chooses it; most of us operate on reflex much of the time).
In case it's not clear, this is something I believe in all of us doing, a universal principle of good communication; not only when "men" are the target, or "women" or "hairdressers" (if one is a hairdresser).
But then, I also think that it's a real mistake to valorize "punching up" and demonize "punching down". Why not just try to avoid punching, instead? Otherwise we are encouraging mistreatment, but only after one finds a way to rationalize it, even if a twisted on.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you still has some deep wisdom for a functional society, and discarding it as part of seeking social justice will come back to bite you.
What are your thoughts?
James Lindsay is awesome at explaining this b.s.
He’s The Godfather of this intellectual movement
If the West survives this bullshit, they will erect statues of Lindsay in the future.
@@joeyschwartz5150 the statue of Lindsay right next to the Statue of Liberty
He’s the expert at it
Im pleased that your videos have more views than most TEDtalks.
13:36 Drawing this distinction between the two schools of thought helps a lot; it seems like one of the reasons we see so many contradictions in the "woke left" is because much of their thinking is cherry-picked from this buffet of ideas (many of which are incompatible). Their economic/socioeconomic ideas come from neo-Marxist approaches to economy, whereas the sociological/Social Sciences are clearly more influenced by post-Marxist postmodern ideas. The more militant former seems to be utilizing the conceptual frameworks cooked up by the latter in order to justify real-world policy meddling.
What a nightmarish combination.
My COVID-19 diagnosis is a social construct.
Oh, you'd get some nods on that one. More sh*t you can't make up. Anything can be true if you say it.
That's actually brilliant, that's a statement that should outrage the far left and far right equally, for completely different reasons
@M C I don't understand what you mean, why you're addressing race and ethnicity to me, or whether you are serious, cynical, or superior. Cheers!
@M C it objectively exist because people live in a certain way, in a certain place, with a certain people, iterated over certain amount of time .
hence why an orange is different from a human while ultimately originating from the same genetic tree down the line, hence why a squirrel and a human is less different than the other, hence why a bl person and a wh person is less different than the previous.
hence why bl people have different geneti, having blatantly, demonstrateably lower i- from observations that have been confirmed by data. obviously
It is actually. The French post structuralists never said social constructs were not useful. Their basis was theoretical psychology more than politics. The purpose of recognizing social constructs was to feee one’s psychology from them as it related to neurosis. There was never any intent to apply the ideas. Their critique of capitalism was simply so an individual could see how one was forced to operate for the sake of survival. The goal was to stand outside of oneself in society not to tear it down. All of them hated what America did with French Poststructuralism and I should know because at a conference in Philly before he died Jean Baudrillard called me the only American who understood him and he said that was because I was multicultural and stood outside of constructs.
I began reading him at age 14 and corresponded with him.
He also never called himself a post modernist. Post modernism was an art movement and a term created by art critics for the movement.
There are still inherent aspects to the COVID virus but we don’t talk about inherent aspects of it, the biology, it’s a social and political discussion. Real poststructuralism was about removing hose constructs to look at the essential aspect of things or to see there was not essential aspect.
COVID could be called jellybeans but it would not change what the virus is. It would change our concept of a jellybean.
It would still affect people the same way.
Poststructuralism is just about looking at how words get meaning and then how they take on me sings of their own so they can be represented as simulacra.
Its not meant for everyday life. It’s a philosophical exercise and that is it.
It is helpful in removing oneself from situations to reflect on ones actions.
Foucault wrote extensively about how he saw Trauma in his patients as a construct that took on meaning after the subject was 18 and learned what had happened in childhood was taboo. He was speaking of working class students at the Sorbonne where he was a counselor.
He also observed that patients who were working class had the smear things happen but did not develop trauma because they did not learn that what happened was wrong, taboo. He was specifically talking about early childhood experiences.
Foucault then became concerned with people becoming true individuals by examining constructs.
Like other philosophers he was criticizing morality as an actuality.
Every good psychologist will tell a patient neurosis is rooted in morality. At the same time, we need these things to have a functional society.
We need the construct of disease to diagnose and categorize. We just need to be aware of how we come to understand things for our own good.
Social constructs are neither good or bad, we make them good or bad. The left weaponized COVID for the election and the result is that we have a rebellion against the vaccine. If I see how that construct was created, I can wear a mask, I can isolate but also I can vote for Trump out of disgust towards the Democrats using the virus for politics and making mask wearing a moral obligation and a political fashion statement. I still wear a mask inside but not on nature trails.
I also understand this as only one virus is what will be a series of new viruses and bacteria designed to wipe out large parts of the human population. We are helpless against nature when if wants to do this. Hence, I can use the disease to think about the fragility of human life.
I can look at constructs, stand outside them and use them to my advantage rather than burning completely controlled by them.
Today’s college classes do not require actually reading Foucault who is incredibly dense. Hence there is no understanding of him as a theoretical psychologist which is what he called himself.
The Poststructuralists reacted against the Marxist student movement that Sartre was a part of. They saw the action as silly and childish, a reaction to the trauma of WWII.
I actually read the stuff. The ides IX post Marxism is that Marxism does not work but Marx contributed to seeing history outside of the way it is written by whatever class is in power at the time. It does not work and like all power structures, if fails because power depends on morality.
The market economy is about exchanges not morality.
We should never be extreme.
One of the best things about this is Coleman has an old school corded telephone hanging on the wall.
All theoretical stuff aside--and the theoretical roots are fascinating--I still wonder why most of the people around me (not academics!) can't see what's going on. It doesn't take a mastery of philosophy or history to see through this stuff, and many philosophy academics don't get it anyway. Why can't they (everyone...my friends, my acquaintances) see that they are not supporting the concept of basic justice by judging people without complete facts, nuance, and compassion? Why can't they see the difference between having "intent" or not when it comes to judging a person's morality? Why can't they see the harmfulness in sowing division as a perverted means to fight racism? Why can't they see that hating any category of humans, including cops or Christians, is the same as, well, hating any category of humans, the very thing they claim to be fighting against? Why can't they see that listening to the people you disagree with is as valuable as listening to those you agree with, and that it is what intelligent people should want to do? Why can't they see that they are striving for a supposed morality in a hate-filled way, and ironically craving harm to others? Why can they not see, especially at this point in time, that wolves in sheeps' clothing are pushing a toxic narrative and toxic ideology onto them via the press? And why can't more of the pundits with integrity see through this? What is it about those of us who see this clearly that allows us to see it? And I am not a person with a ton of confidence or a firm feeling of being on any ground to preach to others, but this is all so maddening that I can't help but wonder. And this is why I am so utterly drawn to Coleman and many of his inner circle, and can't stop taking in their podcasts, articles, talks, etc. It's like seeing someone from the same alien planet.
But at the same time, seeing through this stuff feels so basic. It is basic logic and basic morality. What is it that drives people to set that stuff aside? Or do they genuinely not have the capacity to grasp it, despite their (in the case of my many over-educated friends) Ivy-league graduate degrees? One idea that pops into my head a lot: Somehow this horribleness is exciting and fun. People get off on the feelings of superiority. I guess that comes back to the religion analogy. Meanwhile, they slowly back away from me as if I am a leper. It's painful. Sorry to write so personally, but I know many on here feel this also, as Coleman implied.
@wings of a butterfly Those principles I described are all far out of reach to Trump's comprehension, and his objection to the turning tide, sadly, in his case, really does have to do with being a cruel person who is comfortable with racism, or who is objecting for the sake of objecting, without understanding the nuance. But I do agree that people most likely elected him due to the feeling of a shifting culture. But I also know this is one of those impossible conversations.
This is the way I describe it. It is the feeling of empathy with any actual empathy. Think about how strong the feeling of empathy might be in your life experiences whether that be yourself or others. Watching your dog slowly suffer and die. Watching a family member die of cancer. If you have a child and you see them hurting. There’s a million different examples to give. Those are gut-wrenching feelings. This is the feeling many people have, at least when they first buy in. Does it mean that this is actually justified feelings or what they are truly feeling or their solutions are empathetic? No, most of the times they are not. Much of it is highly misinformed with obscure, highly generic and variable-less data. Most of it is a 7 second video, tweet or a meme. Many the feeling is pity instead of empathy. Many see themselves as a savior any the minority groups can’t do anything without them. Many actually have sinister ideas behind they’re thoughts and actions.
That doesn’t matter. Their thought process is as deep as they think they’re empathetic and that is it. I know many people that this is the easiest way to explain it. When someone says the reason why they should be out in the streets is because the “murderers” of the black people are not apprehended (talking about police), even though these cases end up almost exclusively justified shootings (because the truth is nowhere near the story that is heard 30 minute after it happened). Yet, when someone says something about black children being killed in Chicago every weekend (undeniably tragic and truly innocent) and almost none of their killers are ever caught, they have no idea and talk about how that doesn’t matter and blah de blah (when these children did nothing wrong and their 100% true murderers are never caught).
Stating facts isn't "division". Critical race theory is based on facts. Rejecting CRT creates division. White people have divided this country up for the past 500 years, you don't care about division, only maintaining the white hegemony.
@King Kong Setting aside logic is saying race doesn't matter, when it has mattered for the past 500 years lol. It is a radical belief, not the other way around. You are a postmodernist for suggesting otherwise.
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn Coleman, Glenn Loury (whose interview with CH will be posted later today), John McWhorter and so many other Black intellectuals (and also laypeople!) clearly are not interested in maintaining the white hegemony. They are passionately devoted to examining and promoting well-studied and concrete concepts to improve the lives of the Black population. This video with Coleman (below) is a good starting place to understand their position, and I have no doubt the interview with Glenn will be helpful for you to understand where they (and we followers) are coming from. Lindsay and Boghossian are probably not the best place to start to understand the profound problems with CRT.
ruclips.net/video/Wt95ct2gISA/видео.html
Regressive Left: "doing well on tests is a form of white supremacy. "
Me: "Confucius invented White Supremacy? "
Nice straw man. Do you clowns have any other way of arguing?
Standardized tests that are geared towards skillsets that qualify a person to contribute to the tax base as a worker and a consumer vs tests that basically require you to show proficiency as a classic literary scholar to qualify you for a position of political leadership in the community.
Great episode. It really opened my eyes to post-modernism. I'm definitely listening to this interview again.
Power this, power that, the most liberating truth is the realization that we are all ultimately powerless and that is perfectly fine :)
I agree so much with the point of "the moment you start delivering a message (fact / piece of information), you're no longer having a conversation.... distinguish between a conversation and a debate." So true. A genuine conversation implies mutual learning and understanding (or at the minimum, be the one willing to learn and understand the other person's mind - at least you get to gain wisdom while they miss the chance to).
Excellent interview!!! And still so relevant 2 years later! Thank you 😊
This was fascinating. These terms get thrown around so much, so interesting to hear real, understandable definitions
You get the best of the best on your show Colman. THANKS
The analogy an hour in... I think what's wrong is that what it aims at - racism - is a concept with intention built into it. Racism is basically something only an intentional being can perpetrate. Yet there is being used for a system, something that largely is devoid of intention.
It's like the regress of intersections ... do enough and you circle around to individuality. Same with the systemic racism ... taken far enough it's just how the basic problems of existence manifest themselves.
There are far better theories for this that doesn't involve racism, an intentional concept, for things that are naturally unintentional.
I’m not so sure that racism is only something that can be perpetuated by agents possessing intentionality. If I develop a version of monopoly which denied only black people the $200 when you pass Go, wouldn’t the game be racist? I’m not entirely sure. Maybe we could call it something else, but it intuitively feels like racism, even though it’s not perpetuated by a being w intentionality. 🤷🏻♂️
Okay so I guess you could actually say the racism is not possessed by the game but rather the person who engineered the game, so maybe you’re right. Haha answered my own question
I think a lot of Coleman’s fans would enjoy listening to John Vervaeke, “Awakening from the meaning crisis”.
Best lecture series I’ve come across!
This was incredible. Thank you so much Coleman for generating and facilitating all of the helpful, useful, accessible, practical, and applicable content that you do. Thank you sincerely for having James and Peter on this episode to discuss the finer details of these issues. Looking forward to an episode with Helen!
Wow this was great. This mindset is so strange and cult-like, I just don't understand how it got so powerful so quickly. This is fringe lunacy.
Thanks James, Pater and Coleman.
Another good conversation. Thanks to all three.
Your thoughtful content is always a delight
Wow. Thanks to all three of you.
I am so grateful for these conversations.
This interview was AMAZING! Looking forward to that interview with Helen. Thank you for this interview Coleman.
amazing podcast, very educational. kudos to coleman for reading up on all the material. wow !
Highly enjoyable,illuminating conversation among 3 impressive intellects.
Thanks so much for sharing your hard won knowledge You're the unsung heroes. You have our deepest respect
Excellent discussion. Specifically impressed Coleman had the confidence to just let these guys talk...and still had poignant questions and contributions along the way. Specifically where he brought up the example of accents and the realizations therewith.
Legit sad when this ended. I am only halfway through my work shift.
I'm listening while working too 😄
you work 3 hours a day?
I recommend the Ben Shapiro Jordan Peterson conversation on the Rubin report.
Haha. Of course not. I started my day with other stuff.
Excellent discussion. Thank you guys
Fabulous conversation.
You are an inspiration, Coleman.
This discussion on metaphysics is so useful.
Thank you Coleman, James & Peter.
I feel somewhat more hopeful after listening this podcast & these fine fellers, thank you Gentlemen!
One of the best episides so far. Emphasis on how ordinary people can engage in these types of controversial conversations in their personal lives and circles.
Best episode of CwC to date.
Interesting conversation, thank you
Outstanding! Thank you!
Really enjoyed this discussion, I will definitely be using it for futher reference in years to come.
Great discussion guys....thank you
Great discussion. Vital. Engrossing. Informed.
Loved this. Thank you!
When I first heard the term woke” I thought it was woke to all the nonsenses that passes for woke.
One of the best conversations on this issue. This kind of intelligent and critical way of thinking needs to spread.
Great stuff. Mind blown with the intersectionality, deconstructing identity and becoming your online avatar . I've been trying to conceptualize that for days.
Super duper good! Thankyou
Marvelous conversation
Brilliant conversation
Great conversation!
Coleman, loved you on Glenn's and Sam's podcasts. I'm a first time listener, I must say I am impressed; you are on par with them. Keep up the good work mate!
Massive thanks, Coleman!
Coleman Hughes, Peter Boghossian, and James Lindsay...hell yeah
Gosh, this discussion demands a lot of attention.
I learned a lot from this most interesting discussion. Thanks chaps.
Wow, fantastic stream guys. Big applause.
Thanks brotha Coleman for convening this. Helpful to get a dose of this intellectual rigor. Now I will know what they mean by critical theory. And because of that, I subscribed!
btw I'm building an interactive layer on the internet that connects information into knowledge with bridges.
Coleman hitting more home runs here. Sweet work pal.
Thank you for this. I am working my way through Cynical Theories. This helps.
Here’s the piece by Daniel Dennet
ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/chmess.pdf
I trust you're correct. Sure is nice of you, since Coleman forgot to list the reference.
Thank you so much!
This was a very interesting podcast episode.
10/10, brilliant guests and excellent interviewed
Such a profound discussion. I learned so much and not from a point of hostility
57 (with no tertiary qualifications or major study of the topics) I got lost in the front end but I hung onto the back end and well worth it. Majority time spent mothering so thought the pie analogy very helpful. Thanks so much all 3.
Way to do, Sister Mom!
@@paigemccormick6519 thank you. And you.
great piece
Great stuff!!!
Excellent!
Habermas is not the last of the Frankfurt school. Axel honneth is the director today and it's massively influential today
Excellent discussion from a to z.
While I enjoyed the mental experiments I took part in during university, there was certainly a lot that was only suitable for that environment and not the real world. I liken it to taking LSD and discovering you can fly, then coming down from the trip and jumping off a building (or convincing others to do so)
Very true Ryan, except it's worse than that. The BurnLootMurder (BLM) thugs are intent on pushing us off a building, not merely convincing us to jump.
Really enjoyed this one. The only thing I find a bit questionable is a seeming scepticism towards the idea of even the possibility of a system being racist without racist people within it. I'm not saying this is the case, but as a hypothetical it seems pretty clear you could have someone a long time ago set up a system with the intent of racial discrimination and which does lead to racist outcomes. Over time that person might even be dead and no one in the system knows the original purpose of the system that continues to perpetuate a discriminatory outcome, even if no one within it wants that to be the case. I'm not saying this is what is happening but it doesn't seem in principle a ridiculous idea. I have 30 mins to go in the episode so apologies if they talk about this later!
I find this utterly fascinating as an older millennial, and it really helps to explain a lot of weird confounding interactions I have had with younger people and people of other races, but it hurts my brain. I'll have to watch the latter half later.