If you'd like to support me, go and sign up to Lotuseaters.com and enjoy the work we've done on Aristotle: lotuseaters.com/premium-symposium-16-or-the-politics-of-aristotle-part-i-27-04-2023
You should look into Welsh thinker Dave Snowden’s cynefin model. This lends some perspective to these differet model from an entirely different perspective. And he’s funny too.
That's certainly one way of framing it. It sounds more like Aristotle was a progressive who thought people could just change with the times where Plato saw the destruction that came from abandoning tradition and order.
@@SomeCanineNo, Aristotle was obviously a perpetual revolutionary while Plato was a limited revolutionary. The fact you don't know they were both progressive shows what a fascist you are.
@@SomeCanine Left/right, progressive/conservative, communist/capitalist - I think it usually boils down to whether the state orientates around individual rights (As USA's constitution is supposed to do) or the greater good. In the end I think the individual will always trump any society because society is only ever an agreement between individuals. The individual is a tangible organic entity, whilst society is an intangible construct of those entities.
I noticed in university many years ago that the intro to philosophy course was centered on Plato. Many philosophers were presented, but the whole course seemed geared toward the idea that Plato's Republic was the foundation of any respectable philosophy. The professor talked about The Republic as a 'great watershed moment' because it was 'the first attempt at a planned society' which to him was 'the goal of every great philosopher since then'. The professor discussed a lot of different 'planned societies' and how they failed, but his main theme was that a 'planned society' should be the ultimate goal and that the failures of past 'planned societies' were just lessons that needed to be learned on the road to eventually perfecting it. When he criticized any given philosopher, it was always about their ideas leading to 'disorder' and 'chaos'. It occurred to me that this was the way intro to philosophy was taught in most universities, and that people majoring in all the different 'liberal arts' fields would take an 'intro to philosophy' course as part of that, and that liberal arts graduates were mostly being trained for administrative and social engineering functions, even anthropology and history were taught from an angle that seemed to explicitely promote complex hierarchies and the idea that controlling the day to day personal lives of citizens was part of what defined an 'advanced society'.
That was nothing at all like my intro to philosophy class. We mostly just focused on all the cliche debates and thought experiments over history. But my philosophy teacher just came across as somebody who was a nerd over philosophers.
Yeah, I'm almost tempted to think this is fake. It fits almost too perfectly as a stereotype of a communist professor that conservatives worry about to lead me to believe this actually happened.
Weird. My philosophy professor was a trad catholic who thought Socrates was something akin to a saint. He redpilled the hundred something freshman class with an argument against abortion using an acorn as an example.
*Thrasyboulos was a legend.* An Athenian general who kept scoring victories despite his incompetent peers. When Sparta installed a puppet government, he led a rebellion of peasants to force Sparta back to the table and give Athens back its autonomy. He rejected the puppet government’s offer of a seat at their high table. What a legend.
Is there some kind of Thrasyboulos movement going on right now? I didn't expect to see fanboys and haters of an ancient Greek general in the comments section. When did people get so passionate about this guy?
@@FreakazoidRobots When you see society around you in decay, you look to the past examples of strength and leadership. Sure, you can find this in many thing other than the romans and greeks, but it's pretty obvious that these cultures birthed the west. It's part tiktok gen latching onto trendy trends (stoicism) and part regular people developing a genuine interest.
@@Hoppelite Cos it's not evil like moving the chair out from behind someone so that they fall on their arse when they sit down - Kier Starmer branded the public that had legitimate concerns as extremist thugs, doubled-down by giving them huge sentences and ruining their lives over something in most cases they should have been allowed to do, simply because he's culturally Marxist, WEF pocketed tyrant. If there's anything unironically evil, it's that - Our reality.
In some ways, it also just comes down to simpler things: Athens is a more viable central city for a world empire, being on the ocean, etc... much different dynamic than when it's just city-states competing for dominance in their local areas. Plus, those last great moments of Athens we tend to depict as its _second_ golden age... as its instability actually _became too great_ under democracy, what with that Peloponnesian War and all. Interesting that Sargon refers to it as lasting... It might be more factual to point out that the commie Spartans didn't permit private property and especially _commerce,_ which is going to lead to a lack of those magnificent, stately structures... perhaps it's that cultural asceticism that isn't so lasting.
The Spartans didn't the value the same things that the Athenians did, and so they built no massive degenerate city that could last ages. So what? Athens was at the time, and still is, a degenerate cess pit. Who cares about simply existing for a long time if it's in a horrific state?
We are living in a combination of pre civil war Spain, Weimar, the end of Rome and the beginning of the American civil war simultaneously. Historical multieventism works in mysterious ways I suppose.
@@ItsJustRyan89yes, everything is ok, we have established morals, economy is booming, crime is controlled, the gov is totally not abusing it's power and everybody is happy... Now just smile and nod, clown 🤡
@@ItsJustRyan89 you know what, you do make a point there since they’re not far off from each other. Suppose we’re both right to an extent. I must empathise though, pre civil war Spain and Weimar in particular have got me suspect for our future, and Shutstaffel Starmer may bring about his own enabling act in due time.
The problem is, even if the current managerial class is removed from power, we don't have a virtuous and capable populace that can manage without a managerial class in any western country. A virtuous people must be made, over a lifetime of practicing the virtues, and our current rulers have spent decades actively and passively trying to prevent such a populace from emerging.
I disagree. Most people I know work hard. And the young people that I see in my industry after high school or military want to do well and usually do. Things are just tough right now but we have plenty of people with virtue that can move forward
Ah ha - exactly Plato's Republic watched and evaluated men for decades before allowing them to become a guardian. You don't allow stupid people into power.
Those men have not disappeared from history. Look to your former military men. Not the young who served a handful of years. But those who reached a level of competency and responsibilities, then decided that the action of keeping things static and following orders from those who are not demonstribly smarter was abhorrent. Then look to the countryside to those who naturally have reached positions of leadership but not those who actively pursue power. These are good men who will do what needs done when given support.
@@alexanderbryant4979 You cannot deny there was and still is a deliberate effort from current rulers to promote stupidity and degeneracy. Pointing to outliers doesn't disprove that fact.
@@the.parks.of.no.return And this is why everyone is deliberately made stupid now, so no one can access to power or contribute to solving crises. This deosn't make Plato's system any less of a house of cards as it is.
The likes of the WEF are the modern Platonists among us. They think of themselves as the "Philosopher Kings" that know best, and therefore deserve to rule everyone below them with an iron fist, and be able to shape society however however they see fit.
Which would be fine if they weren't so bad at this. It's like they are playing chess and decided to take out their own peasants because "they are in the way of the important figures"
@@adrenjones9301 They aren't taking out all the peasants, only the ones who have the nerve to demand better. Plato's Republic requires the underclass to basically be uneducated low-IQ GDP cattle who will work all the menial labor and won't question their place in the system. And now you can see why for some the prospect of importing millions of 70IQ people from across the globe is so tempting. They will be easier to control, and only need a modest uplift from the destitution of their homeland to be content.
@@rucker69 If they were competent or smart enough, your well-being and happiness would be in their own interest. Them being insufferably dumb and selfish, but mostly dumb, is my main problem.
I studied Plato's Republic many years ago and remember being struck by how little I could agree with Plato's ideas whilst also being in awe of how phenomenally clever he was. It's also interesting to note how little difference there is between the spin and deception of ancient Athens politicians and the politicians of today with their concern for holding power for outweighing their principles.
He had predecessors and cited his sources so its collected ancient knowledge , human psychology in particular. . What should scare you is they are running us on it. The bible is based on Laws, and Timaeus. Its also written with inspiration from Homer in some cases directly ripped off. The book of Job is a Greek dialog. Alexandrians implemented it. Monotheism was not invented by the tribe. It was the Greeks with the atom and the monad. The book of Judges describe Greek government. That was not in the Levant. There was a god from Orphic mystery regions called phanes, the one god. The tribe was polytheistic in the 4th century bc and the evidence is overwhelming.
@@gwynedd1 By far the most important of Plato's predecessors was Socrates, his mentor. His writings are far from a distillation of the collected wisdom of the day but an attack on conventional wisdom written in the form of Socrates having conversations with people where Socrates continuously demonstrates that ideas people commonly hold don't stand up to scrutiny when examined with intellectual honesty. Even though Socrates is his protagonist it is very much written in Plato's voice with a bitterness for the Athenian democracy that he sees as a tyranny of the masses that brought about Socrates death.
@@vodkaman1970 Socrates also had his predecessors. There is a long chain passing down one from another. Also I think perhaps you glossed over my warning of the state we are in. We are now in the end stages of his plan that is a banking/cartel religion with apocalyptic ideas that are in very active phases including Gaza, Lebanon Rome vs Persia, Leviathan vs Behemoth. Banking was more powerful than the internet is today , then.
When I read "Plato's Republic," the first thing that struck me was his dietary guidelines: wheat without any luxuries as grapes. Scurvy, anyone? I found it ironic that the first stages of his admittedly simple foundations for the city state was doomed to failure. Other parts echoed the failures of other planned societies: Vices like greed could be "taught away." Wars can be won because the Platonic State can play opposing states against each other without consequence. The abolition of the family will eliminate favoritism and government corruption. I have to admire Plato's ability to showcase that you don't know what you think you know, but his take on how to build a society only serves to highlight just how old the fallacy of planned societies are.
This feels like a good place to drop this quote: "80% of managers add zero or negative value to the companies for which they work." - Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
@@Dazza_Doowhat about the guy that got 20 months, as a reduced sentence, for saying he didn't want his tax money go to im"""grant ch""ld ra"""it's? With that illegal almost anyone is guilty.
You can't make them think, but you can allow them to suffer the consequnces of their mistakes. This is the biggest reason people are making so many mistakes in society today IMO. The government coddles people and gives them ever more money for their mistakes. Did you vote in politicians that destroyed your city's social network and caused the breakdown of society? Well, here is a bunch of money to help prevent you from feeling the consequnces of those poor political decisions. Oh, you made bad personal decisions about your lifestyle and are in serious debt? Here is some more free money.
@@dwwolf4636 definitely but peoples reticence to think does suggest that making it the central pillar of any societies stability is just asking for trouble.
The aspect of a country actively oppressing its own people, while throwing wide the doors to an invading force that has zero intention of integration is still absolutely wild to me.
That’s the story as you see it, But in chemistry you energise and agitate a reaction by mixing the components in the solution And if two things are immiscible then you need to add an emulsifier If you don’t have an emulsifier then the two components will seperate on their own as is their nature
@@jackp492 The problem with this comparison is that chemicals are inert and without a will of their own. Neither oil nor water will hunt down and exterminate the other if agitated for long enough.
@@dugonman8360 I wouldnt call it inevitable. Had we not allowed the poor and the women to vote, it probably would have worked out just fine. Then again, the moment wealth becomes the norm, the "Gutmensch" takes over and throws privileges at everyone. And the very People that have been given these unearned privileges, will ensure that everything comes crashing down. Maybe it is inevitable, if History has proven one thing, its that People dont learn from History.
" education without morals seems to me to be a way to create a more clever devil"...C.S. Lewis......" To educate a man in mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society " Theodore Roosevelt..
Plato wished to avoid civil wars and maintain harmony with a restrained leadership that won't turn into tyranny. Aristotle wished for society to act, to overcome challenges and adapt to its circumstances through a sound reasoning that may lead to virtue. Britain is all to happy to drive its people to riot with inaction on one hand and tyranny on the other.
I'm a great admirer of your thinking, but in this case I think you misrepresent Plato and the nature of his dialogue The Republic. I think the primary misunderstanding is that this dialogue is an extended, and complex, allegory about the nature of the soul and of justice. It is not a blueprint for a perfect society; rather it is a guide for the 'care of the soul' and understanding justice. How do I know this? Plato tells us this in The Republic itself; not just once but several times. // Plato was a master of allegory (e.g. the famous allegory of the cave), but the ability to read allegorically based literary works has been almost totally lost in modernity; I think it is one of the signs that modernity has lobotomized (that's a metaphor) many of our human mental capacities. // Scholars more learned than I have critiqued Popper's misunderstanding of Plato, but an online comment is not the place to unpack this in detail. As always, thank for your thoughtful analyses.
I think it needs to be remembered that Carl (as much as I enjoy listening to him) is an Ideologue with a capital "I" and that will always rub off on his interpretation and presentation of information. Same as how a grubby munchkin like Vaush would. It's important we make sure we go to the source and listen to opposing opinions on the same subject to find that ever-shifting Golden Mean.
@xenocrates2559 I think you are ignoring the cultural/zeigteist part that plays into interpreting an allegory when calling modernity lobotomizing. Like Shakespeare's verse 'laughing like parrots at bagpipe' would not make much sense to a person living now or a person on other side of the world living in japan during Keichō era. That would not be enough to call a japanese in 1600 uncultured, would it?
Popper fundamentally misunderstood Plato. The sheer volume of effort dedicated to refuting Plato, when the Platonic idea he sought to refute was in fact a thought experimented refuted *by Plato himself* within the Republic, only shows the intellectual shallowness of literalistic minds like Popper.
Lazy philosophers have made hay for a long time arguing against extreme thought experiments, designed as such and inevitably refuted by their original creators simply to make a point, a point often totally ignored or disregarded by the midwit with a book to sell or a tenure to secure.
That's a silly argument ... people can criticise a thought experiment and it's consequences. It has ZERO relevance what the author of the experiment thinks.
So, engaging in a thought experiment wherein you agree with the conclusions of the creator, though in terms more suited to a contemporary audience, is verboten now?
Man you have no idea how much better you have become through the years. You inspired me to read more, learn more, do more. Thank you for that. Wish you the best in your carreer, family, life.
Ever since I can remember I loved Aristotle and hated Plato. Well done for encapsulating why in words. You Sargon, have a mastery of the English language which deserves praise.
This is backwards, we are living in Athens when we should be living in Sparta. History has taught Sparta poorly and we forget it was the more stable Republic our (American) Founders intended than the arrogant, imperialistic and full of hubris Democracy of Athens. Yes Sparta ruled cruelly over the Helots. Who were the Helots though? Descendants of the Messenians who waged constant war upon Sparta. This after Sparta's constant war with Argos. It was defeat or be defeated, enslave or be enslaved. That was the way the world was. Sparta won and to prevent future war the Messenians were enslaved. Remember Athens kept more slaves than Sparta ever had. It was the Spartan stability and hegemony which followed that ushered across the Peloponnese and the rest of Greece a Pax Laconia which allowed the rest of the city states to flourish. Sparta under Lycurgus developed a governing system based on bicameral executive (2 kings) with a legislative body of citizens. After studying the excesses of Athenian 'Democracy' (as in the Mytilenean Decree) American founders emulated Sparta's more stable decision making governing body and culture. Sparta demurred from foreign entanglements unless forced into it. They only went imperialistic after defeating Athens in the Peloponnesian War, a war they wanted Athens to demure from but arrogant Athens pushed its empire into the Peloponnesian sphere of influence. In victory Sparta could have destroyed Athens but didn't. They were not primitive, in fact it Sparta who demonstrated how highly adaptable it was and defeated Athens at sea (Athen's 'center of gravity'). Sparta wasn't perfect and Athens made great contributions but Sparta's demise then led to Athens demise losing its autonomy to Phillip a generation after that. At the end of the day America and all nations of the West need to end their globalist imperialist Modern Liberal/Leftwing Democracy/Oligarchic designs and return to a more love of nation, less expansionistic stoic patriotism of hard work and conservation. If not, sooner or later the Left will send the West unto a fatal Sicilian Expedition folly dooming us all.
It really blew me away when I started reading about Athens and how absurd they really were as an "advanced society" Hubris is the perfect word for them
Ah just the perfect thing to listen to while making homemade Cornbread for supper. Keep your heads up,shoulders straight and your powder dry my English cousins. Fight for your Rights and Freedoms! 🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴🇮🇪🇮🇪🇮🇪🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸✝️✝️✝️ God Bless Y'all
Carl, You're really back on-point, and I think you're moving in the right direction, alongside others, such as TIKHistory and Yaron Brook. Some months ago, I wrote about all of this in Ancient Civ as we reviewed Plato's Allegory, detailing the differences in metaphysics and epistemology, likewise Platonist ethics manifesting in political discourse. As of present, I am also integrating this into as much of my academic work as possible in any context I can adapt to it. Peikoff's Ominous Parallels, particularly its philosophical contents now consolidated into his Cause of Hitler's Germany, are especially detailed in this area of philosophical corruption throughout the West and its spread to America. If one is to understand the current state of the intellectual battle, it begins here, as does recalibrating our minds to stave off an extension of a totalitarian future. If you wish to expand your commentary in this area, I highly recommend you review their works - literary, lectures, and commentary. In fact, I think we need to network together and generate movement as we move to challenge the bad philosophy underpinning our decay as we simultaneously erect the alternative derived from objective philosophy as derived from Aristotle's beginnings. Keep up the good work, Jeremy
I've talked with quite a few people (including in my own family) who actually thought Platonic dictatorships were the only viable option to manage crises. The problem doesn't stop at people losing decision making skills, it's about people being taught from childhood that only the State has any legitimacy in solving problems too big for atomized individuals to take care of.
You can see an example of Plato's approach in movies and TV. Shows and movie series that have far outlived their shelf life are still being propped up by Hollywood even though they are constantly failing again and again, yet that doesn't stop them from trying to maintain that status quo. Look at Star Wars. It used to dominate the world, but now, like Sparta, it's a crumbling ruin that people either ignore or laugh at.
We don't know that Republic was meant as an actual model to be instituted. There's much to suggest it displays certain dystopian results that logically follow when certain ideals are seen through to perfection; that is, the extent to which an unrealistic structure must be implemented to bring about ideal results. It may rather serve as a reference point.
I remember in grade school learning the myths of Greece, but never learning anything as tangible as this in HS, & it really should've been part of basic curriculum, but it won't matter in the future anyway when department of education is demolished.
The problem is that the attractiveness of each mode of governance varies in proportion to its achievement. A fully "Aristotlean" society will turn to managerial solutions as those that are broken by crisis rather than improved pile up. The citizens of a perfect rational republic of Plato will realize that they have arrived at a place neither rational nor perfect and tear it down. Incidenally, I'd recommend "Voltaire's Bastards" by John Ralston Saul. It's an interesting look at managerialism and rationality, and how the promise of the enlightenment was (in his view) subverted by both.
I told my high schools students years ago when in that field of work to REALLY consider whether they should go to a four year college or not, along the strong suggestion to read Voltaire's Bastards before committing to doing so.
Because the Turks went to war, and beat back the Greeks. The rest of the world was weary of war at that point, and fid not wish to engage in more conflict over a city and land that the Ottomans had held for centuries. A shame.
For multiple reasons actually. I'll start with the explanation of Constantinople (which i will call Byzantium from now on) and then focus on Anatolia. 1) Greece wasnt that supportive or loyal to the Entente and the British and French felt that Greece did not deserve it. (The prime minister and half of the government were pro Entente while the king at the time and the rest of the politicians were for the Central powers). 2) Byzantium was a city of high importance, one of the most important in the world, and thus it was denied to the small and very minor nation like Greece. The greeks argued back on this that they had to get it because they were the successors of Rome, but unfortunately for them.....they werent. Yes the Byzantine Empire IS Roman Empire still, however the state of Greece was just a modern nation state like Romania or Serbia. Thus the argument was denied by the Entente. 3) It controlled the only entrance into the Black sea, so the British tried to secure it for themselves via the ''International zone'' thing, a decision forced by Britain's desire to watch over the mediterrean, a bit of imperialism but also the traditional fear of the large Russian empire (yes that turned into the USSR but the Brits were still worried about them nonethless). Now, for the Anatolian part. Youre wrong on that, partially. It was supposed to be given to Greece via the first Ottoman peace treaty (which also gave Kurdistan Independence, East Turkey to the new state of Armenia and southern Turkey to Italy and French Syria), although not entire thing but only the western part of Turkey, going from the strait all the way down to the coasts near Rhodos. Why only that ? Due to the american influence the borders of the new Europe were meant to follow national lines (Hungary for hungarians, Czechoslovakia for czechs and slovaks, etc), and so Greece was supposed to gain the Turkish lands that had Greek population in them. According to plan, which failed. A military faction of competent troops and commanders under Mustafa Kemal took over the government in Ankara and fought back the French and then the Greek occupation forces, pushing them out of the country (Except for the surroundings of Adana, kept by the French) and this became known as the Turkish war for independence and the Greko-Turkish War.
What I think a lot of people don't understand about Plato's Republic, is that its not actually about politics. The entire allegory of the perfect city is meant to just be a metaphor for a person, and how to individually be moral and just. It isn't really meant to be a good system in itself. Which, unfortunately, large numbers of tyrants have decided to ignore or were too self-obsessed to realize.
Possibly Sargon's best video ever. Plato's principle is present even in the medieval society (philosophers = Church, guardians = aristocracy i.e. warrior class, workers = peasants). It caused 1000 years of stability, or better stagnation. Aristotle's principle shaped Modernity, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment. The state was supposed to be based on a social contract according to Rousseau. And this is the idea of our modern democracies. Interestingly neither the Stoics nor the Epicureans agreed with Plato. Still Neo-Platonism was, what gave rise to Christianity and the medieval society that followed. This is also visible in the medieval philosophy of scholasticism, which was strictly top down, based on idealistic principles. It was Modernity that reintroduced Aristotelian empiricism and with it the idea that abstract principles like the state are derived from the multitude of individual instances, i.e. the state is formed by its citizens.
When will we finally get over this stupid dark age myth. There was tons of technological, artistic, and scientific advancement that took place during the medieval period.
False, western phylosophy was based on Aristotle in the middle ages and the scholastics were especially not neo-platonists. Neo-Platonism was strong in the eastern church mostly and only became popular for a short time in the Rennesance in the west. Other false narrative is the stangation in the middle ages, entirly basless. After the stabilisation of the west in the early middle ages Europe showed a very high growth rate especially after 1000 until the Black Death thet stoped it for a short while, but after the disaster the growth started again until the late early modern period, in most coutnrise even until the 20th century. This is not just about the population but thecnology as well, in the middle ages especially the agrarian revolution is not worthy, but the phylosophical and theological as well as the architectural development is pretty impressive in the era as well.
But this would lead to flawed democracies, something Socrates was rightly concerned with. In my mind, Plato's ideas provided a structure/framework, whilst Aristotle's provided the method, and Socrates provided the guardrails. A republic with democratic mechanisms that exists to protect individual rights. The best system we've come up with beyond an actual benevolent dictatorship...
Aristotle's Politics still rings true today, you can look at most things and politics and can find an answer in his work. He was able to see the world for what it is, and not what he thought it ought to be. Plato's ideas of utopia are a fucking nightmare.
I would too, but since he's a believer in virtue ethics I wouldn't expect him to address the fundamental flaw in it (which is the same as naturalism, whereby what is "natural" and "good" do not follow from each other, and where virtue theory ignores the ability of humans to simply choose otherwise).
And no, our ruling class is in no way Platonic, they worship inferior things while killing superior things, they serve the adversary rather than the Being.
2:00 Just to clarify, the "Workers" or "Bronze" class, would also be the filthy rich. The silver and definitely gold class wouldn't be able to own private property. We definitely have different interpretations of Plato's Republic. The key here is that everyone has their own nature and when they perform what their nature is attuned for, it will benefit society. As an example, if a soldier were to take on the role of a shoemaker and a shoemaker were to take on the role of a soldier, their'd be a disaster. The shoemaker-turned-soldier would lack the skills/spirit and discipline needed to protect the city, while the soldier-turned-shoemaker would produce poor-quality footwear. The army, wearing subpar shoes, would likely cripple itself on the march and surrender to the enemy. Point being Sargon, Socrates' was saying when people are not aligned with their true purpose or nature, it leads to a failure of the state and dysfunction of the polis. It's why he didn't even want to have a "reservist" component of the military. The Philosopher King, ideally, would be wise enough to both see through the constraints of 'trending morality' and 'traditional morality.' I should also note, that Socrates didn't like democracy because it "made equals of unequals" which is why I think the Starship Troopers government model is closer to Plato's Republic than would you are putting forward (with respect). All that said, if you read this comment and disagree with me, Socrates would want that because there was nothing that guy wouldn't argue over. Dude was hilarious as much as he was wise.
@@TheLurker1647 A very good question! In theory, the classes would decided who was eligible to enter. There would also be an obvious self-selection, so for example, if you showed during your upbringing, a particular interest and keenness for, say, blacksmithing, shoemaking, etc. than you would pursue your passion. However, for the higher classes we can use the general outline for who could become the philosopher king. The philosopher king could also be a Woman, and women could also be soldiers if their nature was attuned for it just as men, this was very controversial at the time, but Socrates put that forward. Anyways, First, you had to have high athleticism and fitness, Socrates gave very heavy emphasis to the gym which is often a meme, it's also one of the reasons he liked how Sparta were training their youth. During your training, you would constantly be evaluated, and after being a soldier and first seeing battle than leading in battle, you would carry on under constant evaluation of your peers. You'd vigorously train and study philosophy which was a field that encompassed virtually everything back in its day. In this system, there wouldn't be the "Nuclear Family" but rather, everyone lived communally with the exception of the bronze class who could retain the nuclear family system. Another note, you also had to be good looking haha, no word of a lie, you'd better be pretty and handsome AF if you wanted to be the on top, that was specifically noted by Socrates who himself had made fun of himself for not being particularly handsome. In the end, Lurker, your line of questioning breaks Plato's theory because it eventually would get to questioning the validity of "The Forms" theory that Socrates had put forward in that how can we really know anything and therefor every system is vulnerable to corruption whether intended or not (i.e. deliberate corruption vs bureaucracy).
to add a bit to the final thought in the video: one of the factors as to why Athens endured while Sparta faded was a fact that the Athenians by en large correctly assessed, which is that a life one enjoys is a life worth fighting hard for, while Spartans were in favor of a much more uptight, war-oriented lifestyle for their people, which wasn't as popular with the people of the vassal states the Spartans had conquered or allied with. The Spartans did not promote their way of life beyond their city state, to expand their power and influence and make an empire (and thus have a better chance of surviving against the more powerful enemies like Rome & barbarians that ultimately destroyed it), while the Athenians succeeded at this very thing
In the foreword to Republic it is mentioned that the perfect city envisioned by Plato is a thought experiment meant to showcase how one should structure one's mind to find goodness. (That is my memory of the page, you may refute me if it is too inaccurate to the wording of the book.) Plato himself says in Republic that his hypothetical state couldn't exist in reality and that it would degenerate over time as all things do. Plato's thought experiment was never a vision of how the world should be, but how your mind should be. At least that is as I've understood the book. I am glad to be proven wrong if I am wrong, I just feel like it is false to say that Plato wanted to implement this state in reality.
@Richforce1 I suppose? But as stated, the perfect society he describes is a thought experiment to locate morality in your mind, not an actual proposal for a realistic society.
Hi, I think it would be grate to see ricky gervais on the lotus eaters. He has some very interesting views on his BALR YT channel. He seems to be on the same page as you guys. P.S. Thank you Carl for all the hard work you have done for all of us over the years.
Not to defend Plato, but Plato would have been opposed to infinity immigration because it jeopardizes the stability of the state. So, even by this standard, Two-tier Kier fails.
Well done sir. I have been saying this forever. As far as I know we here in the US were all taught that our society was founded on neo platonic ideas but almost nobody seems to connect the dots.
Maturing is knowing that we live in Athens and should be living in Sparta. In any case, Platonists will tell you that Aristotle and Plato are not truly opposed, and all of western society is better for it. The modern zeitgeist against Plato is nonsense.
Plato was a gnostic in thought, you can tell this via his Cave allegory and what this video expresses. His world view, which was molded by his mentor, Heraclitus, also a gnostic, has been damaging to intellectual pursuit and is one of the main reasons we are in the state we find ourselves. He was also pro-pederasty up until his final years but im sure that's totally a coincidence as well.
Plato was not gnostic. This is a facial misreading, and quite easy to find evidence of the contrary. If there's any doubt, might I remind you that the Gospel of John isn't gnostic simply for speaking from a non-materialist frame of reference either.
These foundations of Western Culture should be required reading for ALL CHILDREN. Even if someone is allowing their children to be "educated" by the state, they should take the time to familiarize themselves and their family with the Great Books of the Western World.
No, Plato was right. You have it wrong. The problem you're having is that you want to hold onto liberal ideas of freedom and tolerance while also holding onto tradition and order. You cannot have both. You either have order/tradition or freedom/chaos. If you try to mix the approaches, it doesn't work.
Find it so intriguing how even 2500 years ago there were utopian ideologues who believed philosophers, academics are also at the top of the social hierarchy with the ruling elites.
"The lands of the whole state Lycurgus divided equally among all, that equality of possession might leave no one more powerful than another. He ordered all to take their meals in public, that no man might secretly indulge in splendour of luxury." The men of Sparta were permitted " to form promiscuous connections with all the women of the city, thinking that conception would be more speedy if each of the females made the experiment with several men." They were crazy slaver war commies (it was banned to do any work except war too)
@@thedeviousgreek1540 - i dunno why people read secondary sources when stuff like xenophon (recent translations at least) is readable and informative. I think they're massively overrated (polybius assessment of them as "stable which is good but too stable so couldn't grow" to paraphrase, seems correct).
If you haven't done so already, Carl, I would STRONGLY recommend Arthur Herman's history, *The Cave and the Light,* a grand historical tour of the West via the frame of its two most fundamental philosophers.
I like Plato's four cardinal virtues. They make it easy for me to describe how a person should act. Unfortunately, most of Plato's other contributions to Philosophy are pretty frustrating to put it mildly.
I need to look into the mosaic revelation, but as it stands I love the cardinal virtues. It just sucks the guy who coined them was applying them incorrectly, but at least Aristotle had some sense.
I'm gonna spend a good week unpacking this, but at first blush: Lycurgus was right, but only insofar as he wanted a static system to produce hard men. Mankind hates static systems (cue Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground.) So the Aristotelian answer is a scaffolding that provides for individual sovereignty in the face of uncertainty. I like it.
Not entirely related but I feel like Sparta was the inspiration for the Klingons (or any sci-fi that has a tribe devoted to warfare at the expense of anything else)
Of course philosophers and managers want the stability of Plato's Republic. They want to be in charge forever, living a life of leasure and pleasure, never understanding the despots and tyrants they would be.
Fascinating analysis. I wonder how much the Platonic influence on Christian theology has encouraged this trend. The apol sovereign God who determines all things reaching its apex of expression in Calvinism seems tailor made to encourage enforced rather than grown virtue. As a Latter-day Saint I have been raised on a concept of Devine governance that is more at home in Aristotle's polis than Plato's Republic. "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." JS Jr.
For anyone else interested in the dichotomy between Platonic and Aristotelian thought, Leonard Peikoff has a 50 part history of philosophy series that traces the divergence of the two schools throughout history on RUclips. He is an Objectivist but he does a fair treatment of the topic and explicitly states when he is speaking from an Objectivist POV. He is entirely biased towards Aristotle but is explicit about this bias making it easy to parse through it whereas most professors try to hide their bias by claiming a false position of impartiality. Anyone who is a fan of Dr. Michael Sugrue's lectures will most definitely appreciate Peikoff.
Interesting. I would add that I wish Carl announced when he was speaking from his POV, because emphatically Aristotle's philosophy was flawed both by the ability of humans to choose otherwise (from the good and just) and the putative definition that "natural = good" (which is ontologically incorrect).
If you'd like to support me, go and sign up to Lotuseaters.com and enjoy the work we've done on Aristotle: lotuseaters.com/premium-symposium-16-or-the-politics-of-aristotle-part-i-27-04-2023
You should look into Welsh thinker Dave Snowden’s cynefin model.
This lends some perspective to these differet model from an entirely different perspective.
And he’s funny too.
...FLAT EARTH.
DBM. ENGLAND.
Pls can you rejoin Beau on Epochs (or ask another Lotus Eater to)? Beau is fantastic but its far more engaging with 2 people discussing.
@@box1472 and the little season…
(Revelation 20: 1-9).
DBM. England 🏴
@@box1472 Jon Levi Channel.
This is where you shine Carl. This is your format.
Agreed 100%
Yes, well said.
Lord Sargon is a man of many talents 😌👌
Sargon's audiencd pretending they only follow him for the 1% of historical content that he produces.
@@np4029 it's why i started, and why i continue, rarely watch any lotuseater content
Anti-fragile Aristotelian Advancement
VS
Paranoid Platonic Planners
That's certainly one way of framing it. It sounds more like Aristotle was a progressive who thought people could just change with the times where Plato saw the destruction that came from abandoning tradition and order.
@@SomeCanineNo, Aristotle was obviously a perpetual revolutionary while Plato was a limited revolutionary. The fact you don't know they were both progressive shows what a fascist you are.
@@SomeCanine progressives don't believe in virtue, so this reading is worthless.
You may just as well say Caesar was a fascist
@SomeCanine yeah he progressed philosophical life more than commie plato ever did.
@@SomeCanine Left/right, progressive/conservative, communist/capitalist - I think it usually boils down to whether the state orientates around individual rights (As USA's constitution is supposed to do) or the greater good. In the end I think the individual will always trump any society because society is only ever an agreement between individuals. The individual is a tangible organic entity, whilst society is an intangible construct of those entities.
I noticed in university many years ago that the intro to philosophy course was centered on Plato. Many philosophers were presented, but the whole course seemed geared toward the idea that Plato's Republic was the foundation of any respectable philosophy. The professor talked about The Republic as a 'great watershed moment' because it was 'the first attempt at a planned society' which to him was 'the goal of every great philosopher since then'. The professor discussed a lot of different 'planned societies' and how they failed, but his main theme was that a 'planned society' should be the ultimate goal and that the failures of past 'planned societies' were just lessons that needed to be learned on the road to eventually perfecting it.
When he criticized any given philosopher, it was always about their ideas leading to 'disorder' and 'chaos'.
It occurred to me that this was the way intro to philosophy was taught in most universities, and that people majoring in all the different 'liberal arts' fields would take an 'intro to philosophy' course as part of that, and that liberal arts graduates were mostly being trained for administrative and social engineering functions, even anthropology and history were taught from an angle that seemed to explicitely promote complex hierarchies and the idea that controlling the day to day personal lives of citizens was part of what defined an 'advanced society'.
That was nothing at all like my intro to philosophy class. We mostly just focused on all the cliche debates and thought experiments over history. But my philosophy teacher just came across as somebody who was a nerd over philosophers.
Certainly not here.
Yeah, I'm almost tempted to think this is fake. It fits almost too perfectly as a stereotype of a communist professor that conservatives worry about to lead me to believe this actually happened.
Weird.
My philosophy professor was a trad catholic who thought Socrates was something akin to a saint.
He redpilled the hundred something freshman class with an argument against abortion using an acorn as an example.
So, a 'real' Platonic state has never yet been tried then? :D Hmm ... that sounds familiar :)
*Thrasyboulos was a legend.*
An Athenian general who kept scoring victories despite his incompetent peers. When Sparta installed a puppet government, he led a rebellion of peasants to force Sparta back to the table and give Athens back its autonomy. He rejected the puppet government’s offer of a seat at their high table. What a legend.
If Aristotle wasn't the greatest man who ever lived, he was.
He was such a legendary General, he was killed by band of peasant farmers, because of the atrocities the soldiers under his command, committed.
Is there some kind of Thrasyboulos movement going on right now? I didn't expect to see fanboys and haters of an ancient Greek general in the comments section. When did people get so passionate about this guy?
Seems like obtuse foolishness to me.
@@FreakazoidRobots When you see society around you in decay, you look to the past examples of strength and leadership. Sure, you can find this in many thing other than the romans and greeks, but it's pretty obvious that these cultures birthed the west. It's part tiktok gen latching onto trendy trends (stoicism) and part regular people developing a genuine interest.
Keir is so unironically evil.
So, you mean literally evil? Good God I loathe this overuse of the word unironic. "mUah BuT cArL uSeS iT"
@@bhante1345take a breath, bud
@@bhante1345 yeah i agree with you. Why use the word unironically? As opposed to Keir being ironically evil?
He’s just evil.
@@Hoppelite Cos it's not evil like moving the chair out from behind someone so that they fall on their arse when they sit down - Kier Starmer branded the public that had legitimate concerns as extremist thugs, doubled-down by giving them huge sentences and ruining their lives over something in most cases they should have been allowed to do, simply because he's culturally Marxist, WEF pocketed tyrant. If there's anything unironically evil, it's that - Our reality.
The visual at the end... comparing Athens to Sparta, really really drove that message home.
In some ways, it also just comes down to simpler things: Athens is a more viable central city for a world empire, being on the ocean, etc... much different dynamic than when it's just city-states competing for dominance in their local areas.
Plus, those last great moments of Athens we tend to depict as its _second_ golden age... as its instability actually _became too great_ under democracy, what with that Peloponnesian War and all. Interesting that Sargon refers to it as lasting...
It might be more factual to point out that the commie Spartans didn't permit private property and especially _commerce,_ which is going to lead to a lack of those magnificent, stately structures... perhaps it's that cultural asceticism that isn't so lasting.
@@TransRoofKorean Yes those are good points to consider. The fall of Empires almost always boils down to a combination of factors.
I thought that was a brutal ending.
The Spartans didn't the value the same things that the Athenians did, and so they built no massive degenerate city that could last ages. So what? Athens was at the time, and still is, a degenerate cess pit. Who cares about simply existing for a long time if it's in a horrific state?
A video showing how Athens botched its own form of Democracy would be a perfect complement to this
Democracy existing at all means you've botched your political system.
As would one contrasting Aristotle's thought with that of Bacon.
How do you botch mob rule?
We are living in a combination of pre civil war Spain, Weimar, the end of Rome and the beginning of the American civil war simultaneously. Historical multieventism works in mysterious ways I suppose.
Yeah, we’re not though.
@@ItsJustRyan89the tensions are growing my friend, this once great island is now situated upon a volcano waiting to explode.
@@ItsJustRyan89yes, everything is ok, we have established morals, economy is booming, crime is controlled, the gov is totally not abusing it's power and everybody is happy...
Now just smile and nod, clown 🤡
@@DjDeadpig agreed. But I don’t see us living in a combination of things that are elementally the same thing - it’s the collapse of a society.
@@ItsJustRyan89 you know what, you do make a point there since they’re not far off from each other. Suppose we’re both right to an extent. I must empathise though, pre civil war Spain and Weimar in particular have got me suspect for our future, and Shutstaffel Starmer may bring about his own enabling act in due time.
The problem is, even if the current managerial class is removed from power, we don't have a virtuous and capable populace that can manage without a managerial class in any western country. A virtuous people must be made, over a lifetime of practicing the virtues, and our current rulers have spent decades actively and passively trying to prevent such a populace from emerging.
I disagree. Most people I know work hard. And the young people that I see in my industry after high school or military want to do well and usually do. Things are just tough right now but we have plenty of people with virtue that can move forward
Ah ha - exactly Plato's Republic watched and evaluated men for decades before allowing them to become a guardian. You don't allow stupid people into power.
Those men have not disappeared from history. Look to your former military men. Not the young who served a handful of years. But those who reached a level of competency and responsibilities, then decided that the action of keeping things static and following orders from those who are not demonstribly smarter was abhorrent. Then look to the countryside to those who naturally have reached positions of leadership but not those who actively pursue power. These are good men who will do what needs done when given support.
@@alexanderbryant4979 You cannot deny there was and still is a deliberate effort from current rulers to promote stupidity and degeneracy. Pointing to outliers doesn't disprove that fact.
@@the.parks.of.no.return And this is why everyone is deliberately made stupid now, so no one can access to power or contribute to solving crises. This deosn't make Plato's system any less of a house of cards as it is.
Note that the most successful leader of all time, Alexander, was tutored by Aristotle.
All major western changes in zeitgeist were informed by aristotelian ethics.
Do you mean military leader?
He was an excellent military General, but idk how great of a ruler he was. I mean we really never got to see
Given how quickly his empire dissolved, I don't think Alexander could be considered a successful political leader.
@jeremyk9000 not his fault he died like 30 years early and didn't get a chance to clearly lay out how his dynasty would be 😂
The likes of the WEF are the modern Platonists among us. They think of themselves as the "Philosopher Kings" that know best, and therefore deserve to rule everyone below them with an iron fist, and be able to shape society however however they see fit.
Which would be fine if they weren't so bad at this. It's like they are playing chess and decided to take out their own peasants because "they are in the way of the important figures"
@@adrenjones9301 They aren't taking out all the peasants, only the ones who have the nerve to demand better. Plato's Republic requires the underclass to basically be uneducated low-IQ GDP cattle who will work all the menial labor and won't question their place in the system. And now you can see why for some the prospect of importing millions of 70IQ people from across the globe is so tempting. They will be easier to control, and only need a modest uplift from the destitution of their homeland to be content.
@@adrenjones9301 It is never fine.
@@rucker69 if they did a good job, you wouldn't even know they existed. You wouldn't even ask questions.
@@rucker69 If they were competent or smart enough, your well-being and happiness would be in their own interest. Them being insufferably dumb and selfish, but mostly dumb, is my main problem.
I studied Plato's Republic many years ago and remember being struck by how little I could agree with Plato's ideas whilst also being in awe of how phenomenally clever he was. It's also interesting to note how little difference there is between the spin and deception of ancient Athens politicians and the politicians of today with their concern for holding power for outweighing their principles.
He had predecessors and cited his sources so its collected ancient knowledge , human psychology in particular. . What should scare you is they are running us on it. The bible is based on Laws, and Timaeus. Its also written with inspiration from Homer in some cases directly ripped off. The book of Job is a Greek dialog. Alexandrians implemented it. Monotheism was not invented by the tribe. It was the Greeks with the atom and the monad. The book of Judges describe Greek government. That was not in the Levant. There was a god from Orphic mystery regions called phanes, the one god. The tribe was polytheistic in the 4th century bc and the evidence is overwhelming.
@@gwynedd1 Christianity is more or less a Hellenised form of Judaism.
@@gwynedd1 By far the most important of Plato's predecessors was Socrates, his mentor. His writings are far from a distillation of the collected wisdom of the day but an attack on conventional wisdom written in the form of Socrates having conversations with people where Socrates continuously demonstrates that ideas people commonly hold don't stand up to scrutiny when examined with intellectual honesty. Even though Socrates is his protagonist it is very much written in Plato's voice with a bitterness for the Athenian democracy that he sees as a tyranny of the masses that brought about Socrates death.
@@vodkaman1970
Socrates also had his predecessors. There is a long chain passing down one from another.
Also I think perhaps you glossed over my warning of the state we are in. We are now in the end stages of his plan that is a banking/cartel religion with apocalyptic ideas that are in very active phases including Gaza, Lebanon Rome vs Persia, Leviathan vs Behemoth. Banking was more powerful than the internet is today , then.
When I read "Plato's Republic," the first thing that struck me was his dietary guidelines: wheat without any luxuries as grapes. Scurvy, anyone? I found it ironic that the first stages of his admittedly simple foundations for the city state was doomed to failure.
Other parts echoed the failures of other planned societies: Vices like greed could be "taught away." Wars can be won because the Platonic State can play opposing states against each other without consequence. The abolition of the family will eliminate favoritism and government corruption. I have to admire Plato's ability to showcase that you don't know what you think you know, but his take on how to build a society only serves to highlight just how old the fallacy of planned societies are.
I’m sitting down for lunch, and Sargon uploads.
*Perfect timing, my dude*
Exactly what I'm doing now too!
the goal isnt weimar america, its weimar world
This. Spot on. AF. Be well.
Greets from Warsaw.
Oy vey, small hat Golden Age!
The degeneracy hasn’t even started yet, what you’re seeing now is just healthy natural third worldism..
Weimar America = Weimar World.
@@allewis4008 child prostitution on every street corner! very kosher!
This feels like a good place to drop this quote:
"80% of managers add zero or negative value to the companies for which they work."
- Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
Surprised starmer hasn't thrown you in jail yet, glad to hear he hasn't though!
Der Starmer
Not likely, nothing Carl has said is worth the effort.
@@Dazza_Doowhat about the guy that got 20 months, as a reduced sentence, for saying he didn't want his tax money go to im"""grant ch""ld ra"""it's?
With that illegal almost anyone is guilty.
Relax dude, your living in a fantasy land if you think that’s on the table
@@jackp492 me thinks you are living in fantasy land if you think it isn't on the table.
Aristotles philosophy has one glaring issue that history has shown time and time again. You can educate a group but you can’t make them think.
Tragically true.
You can't make them think, but you can allow them to suffer the consequnces of their mistakes. This is the biggest reason people are making so many mistakes in society today IMO. The government coddles people and gives them ever more money for their mistakes.
Did you vote in politicians that destroyed your city's social network and caused the breakdown of society? Well, here is a bunch of money to help prevent you from feeling the consequnces of those poor political decisions. Oh, you made bad personal decisions about your lifestyle and are in serious debt? Here is some more free money.
True.
But that's still better than to deny the ability exists at all.
@@dwwolf4636 definitely but peoples reticence to think does suggest that making it the central pillar of any societies stability is just asking for trouble.
How do you incentivise thinking then?
The aspect of a country actively oppressing its own people, while throwing wide the doors to an invading force that has zero intention of integration is still absolutely wild to me.
It's like a cartoon villain came alive to destroy democracy or something.
That’s the story as you see it,
But in chemistry you energise and agitate a reaction by mixing the components in the solution
And if two things are immiscible then you need to add an emulsifier
If you don’t have an emulsifier then the two components will seperate on their own as is their nature
@@jackp492 The problem with this comparison is that chemicals are inert and without a will of their own. Neither oil nor water will hunt down and exterminate the other if agitated for long enough.
@@adrenjones9301 or it's the inevitable conclusion of every democratic society.
@@dugonman8360 I wouldnt call it inevitable. Had we not allowed the poor and the women to vote, it probably would have worked out just fine.
Then again, the moment wealth becomes the norm, the "Gutmensch" takes over and throws privileges at everyone. And the very People that have been given these unearned privileges, will ensure that everything comes crashing down.
Maybe it is inevitable, if History has proven one thing, its that People dont learn from History.
" education without morals seems to me to be a way to create a more clever devil"...C.S. Lewis......" To educate a man in mind but not in morals is to educate a menace to society " Theodore Roosevelt..
Plato wished to avoid civil wars and maintain harmony with a restrained leadership that won't turn into tyranny.
Aristotle wished for society to act, to overcome challenges and adapt to its circumstances through a sound reasoning that may lead to virtue.
Britain is all to happy to drive its people to riot with inaction on one hand and tyranny on the other.
Worst of both wrolds. Both the native who they are supposed to serve and the foreigner who they tried to butter up to hate them
I'm a great admirer of your thinking, but in this case I think you misrepresent Plato and the nature of his dialogue The Republic. I think the primary misunderstanding is that this dialogue is an extended, and complex, allegory about the nature of the soul and of justice. It is not a blueprint for a perfect society; rather it is a guide for the 'care of the soul' and understanding justice. How do I know this? Plato tells us this in The Republic itself; not just once but several times. // Plato was a master of allegory (e.g. the famous allegory of the cave), but the ability to read allegorically based literary works has been almost totally lost in modernity; I think it is one of the signs that modernity has lobotomized (that's a metaphor) many of our human mental capacities. // Scholars more learned than I have critiqued Popper's misunderstanding of Plato, but an online comment is not the place to unpack this in detail. As always, thank for your thoughtful analyses.
Thank you
I think it needs to be remembered that Carl (as much as I enjoy listening to him) is an Ideologue with a capital "I" and that will always rub off on his interpretation and presentation of information. Same as how a grubby munchkin like Vaush would.
It's important we make sure we go to the source and listen to opposing opinions on the same subject to find that ever-shifting Golden Mean.
can allegories be "misinterpreted"? isnt the whole point its just a mental exercise (that usually steelman's your own bias)?
@xenocrates2559
I think you are ignoring the cultural/zeigteist part that plays into interpreting an allegory when calling modernity lobotomizing. Like Shakespeare's verse 'laughing like parrots at bagpipe' would not make much sense to a person living now or a person on other side of the world living in japan during Keichō era. That would not be enough to call a japanese in 1600 uncultured, would it?
Popper fundamentally misunderstood Plato. The sheer volume of effort dedicated to refuting Plato, when the Platonic idea he sought to refute was in fact a thought experimented refuted *by Plato himself* within the Republic, only shows the intellectual shallowness of literalistic minds like Popper.
Lazy philosophers have made hay for a long time arguing against extreme thought experiments, designed as such and inevitably refuted by their original creators simply to make a point, a point often totally ignored or disregarded by the midwit with a book to sell or a tenure to secure.
@@zachhughes9149 Hay is for horses.
Popper the hack misunderstood Plato, I'm shocked.
That's a silly argument ... people can criticise a thought experiment and it's consequences. It has ZERO relevance what the author of the experiment thinks.
So, engaging in a thought experiment wherein you agree with the conclusions of the creator, though in terms more suited to a contemporary audience, is verboten now?
Man you have no idea how much better you have become through the years. You inspired me to read more, learn more, do more. Thank you for that. Wish you the best in your carreer, family, life.
Sargon my words to you is Don’t Trust Dev
Haha is dev doing something with him?
@@N-A762he defends destiny, which needs no explanation
@@levinicusrex1006 Thats fair maybe I didnt pay enough attention but I didnt hear Dev mentioned in the video
Dev is very first order thinking and doesn't have any foresight ability. He needs the trusted sources (tm) to have an opinion.
@@simonwinn8757 trusted sources= whatever Klaus Schwab/WEF approves of
Thanks, Carl. My daughter and I had a chat about this very topic last night. You show the point I tried to make quite well.
And where do the ungovernable hordes of imported barbarians fit into this model?
Look to the Romans and the battle of Adrianople and the lack of restriction on the Gothic invasion for that lesson.
The mexigoths? Or the Islagoths?
Athens did not extend the franchise to non-Athenians and non-males.
@@SargonofAkkadB A S E D
@@SargonofAkkadincredibly based
Ever since I can remember I loved Aristotle and hated Plato. Well done for encapsulating why in words. You Sargon, have a mastery of the English language which deserves praise.
This is backwards, we are living in Athens when we should be living in Sparta.
History has taught Sparta poorly and we forget it was the more stable Republic our (American) Founders intended than the arrogant, imperialistic and full of hubris Democracy of Athens.
Yes Sparta ruled cruelly over the Helots. Who were the Helots though? Descendants of the Messenians who waged constant war upon Sparta. This after Sparta's constant war with Argos. It was defeat or be defeated, enslave or be enslaved. That was the way the world was. Sparta won and to prevent future war the Messenians were enslaved. Remember Athens kept more slaves than Sparta ever had.
It was the Spartan stability and hegemony which followed that ushered across the Peloponnese and the rest of Greece a Pax Laconia which allowed the rest of the city states to flourish.
Sparta under Lycurgus developed a governing system based on bicameral executive (2 kings) with a legislative body of citizens. After studying the excesses of Athenian 'Democracy' (as in the Mytilenean Decree) American founders emulated Sparta's more stable decision making governing body and culture. Sparta demurred from foreign entanglements unless forced into it. They only went imperialistic after defeating Athens in the Peloponnesian War, a war they wanted Athens to demure from but arrogant Athens pushed its empire into the Peloponnesian sphere of influence. In victory Sparta could have destroyed Athens but didn't. They were not primitive, in fact it Sparta who demonstrated how highly adaptable it was and defeated Athens at sea (Athen's 'center of gravity'). Sparta wasn't perfect and Athens made great contributions but Sparta's demise then led to Athens demise losing its autonomy to Phillip a generation after that.
At the end of the day America and all nations of the West need to end their globalist imperialist Modern Liberal/Leftwing Democracy/Oligarchic designs and return to a more love of nation, less expansionistic stoic patriotism of hard work and conservation. If not, sooner or later the Left will send the West unto a fatal Sicilian Expedition folly dooming us all.
Exactly.
ukriane is the sicilian expedition
It really blew me away when I started reading about Athens and how absurd they really were as an "advanced society"
Hubris is the perfect word for them
Sparta was a fucking shithole though.
Why didn't they make a bicameral executive then?
Ah just the perfect thing to listen to while making homemade Cornbread for supper.
Keep your heads up,shoulders straight and your powder dry my English cousins. Fight for your Rights and Freedoms! 🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴🇮🇪🇮🇪🇮🇪🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸✝️✝️✝️ God Bless Y'all
Carl,
You're really back on-point, and I think you're moving in the right direction, alongside others, such as TIKHistory and Yaron Brook.
Some months ago, I wrote about all of this in Ancient Civ as we reviewed Plato's Allegory, detailing the differences in metaphysics and epistemology, likewise Platonist ethics manifesting in political discourse. As of present, I am also integrating this into as much of my academic work as possible in any context I can adapt to it.
Peikoff's Ominous Parallels, particularly its philosophical contents now consolidated into his Cause of Hitler's Germany, are especially detailed in this area of philosophical corruption throughout the West and its spread to America. If one is to understand the current state of the intellectual battle, it begins here, as does recalibrating our minds to stave off an extension of a totalitarian future.
If you wish to expand your commentary in this area, I highly recommend you review their works - literary, lectures, and commentary. In fact, I think we need to network together and generate movement as we move to challenge the bad philosophy underpinning our decay as we simultaneously erect the alternative derived from objective philosophy as derived from Aristotle's beginnings.
Keep up the good work,
Jeremy
I've talked with quite a few people (including in my own family) who actually thought Platonic dictatorships were the only viable option to manage crises. The problem doesn't stop at people losing decision making skills, it's about people being taught from childhood that only the State has any legitimacy in solving problems too big for atomized individuals to take care of.
Somehow, despite millennia of innovation, all of Western philosophy is still encapsulated as Platonism vs Aristotelianism.
That is because these differing ideas are a result of human nature, and that hasn't changed much since then.
genuinely love how applicable this is at this very moment; Sargon, thank you
This is a very dense 12 minutes. I had to listen. Wait a couple of days. Then listen again.
You can see an example of Plato's approach in movies and TV. Shows and movie series that have far outlived their shelf life are still being propped up by Hollywood even though they are constantly failing again and again, yet that doesn't stop them from trying to maintain that status quo. Look at Star Wars. It used to dominate the world, but now, like Sparta, it's a crumbling ruin that people either ignore or laugh at.
Sociologists: compare and contrast 1950s capitalism.
Actual intellectuals: compare and contrast two historical points of view.
If you're on Carl's channel watching this in earnest, know this - you are the contingency that your rulers seek to mitigate.
Let's go to Wendagoon, ViseGrad24 or anything not celebration the EU-Par...
We don't know that Republic was meant as an actual model to be instituted. There's much to suggest it displays certain dystopian results that logically follow when certain ideals are seen through to perfection; that is, the extent to which an unrealistic structure must be implemented to bring about ideal results. It may rather serve as a reference point.
I was taught that it was allegory for the inner life.
I’m very happy you are back here.
I remember in grade school learning the myths of Greece, but never learning anything as tangible as this in HS, & it really should've been part of basic curriculum, but it won't matter in the future anyway when department of education is demolished.
These aren't Greek myths though, they're philosophical works by Greek philosophers.
That line "Opportunity- the arch enemy of the manager" It hits me soo hard, if only I could say more.
The problem is that the attractiveness of each mode of governance varies in proportion to its achievement. A fully "Aristotlean" society will turn to managerial solutions as those that are broken by crisis rather than improved pile up. The citizens of a perfect rational republic of Plato will realize that they have arrived at a place neither rational nor perfect and tear it down.
Incidenally, I'd recommend "Voltaire's Bastards" by John Ralston Saul. It's an interesting look at managerialism and rationality, and how the promise of the enlightenment was (in his view) subverted by both.
I told my high schools students years ago when in that field of work to REALLY consider whether they should go to a four year college or not, along the strong suggestion to read Voltaire's Bastards before committing to doing so.
Interesting points, great conclusion at the end. Keep up the great work.
I truly appreciate your channel, Sargon. Thank you.
Greece was on the winning side of WW1 & 2, but wasn't rewarded with Constantinople & Anatolia?
Why?
Because the Turks went to war, and beat back the Greeks. The rest of the world was weary of war at that point, and fid not wish to engage in more conflict over a city and land that the Ottomans had held for centuries.
A shame.
@zoch9797 nope, that's not the reason.
The point was to free up Palestine for a certain....project there later. Nothing more.
Turkey wasn't a combatant in ww2...
Why would anyone award a third parties territory away?
For multiple reasons actually.
I'll start with the explanation of Constantinople (which i will call Byzantium from now on) and then focus on Anatolia.
1) Greece wasnt that supportive or loyal to the Entente and the British and French felt that Greece did not deserve it. (The prime minister and half of the government were pro Entente while the king at the time and the rest of the politicians were for the Central powers).
2) Byzantium was a city of high importance, one of the most important in the world, and thus it was denied to the small and very minor nation like Greece. The greeks argued back on this that they had to get it because they were the successors of Rome, but unfortunately for them.....they werent. Yes the Byzantine Empire IS Roman Empire still, however the state of Greece was just a modern nation state like Romania or Serbia. Thus the argument was denied by the Entente.
3) It controlled the only entrance into the Black sea, so the British tried to secure it for themselves via the ''International zone'' thing, a decision forced by Britain's desire to watch over the mediterrean, a bit of imperialism but also the traditional fear of the large Russian empire (yes that turned into the USSR but the Brits were still worried about them nonethless).
Now, for the Anatolian part.
Youre wrong on that, partially.
It was supposed to be given to Greece via the first Ottoman peace treaty (which also gave Kurdistan Independence, East Turkey to the new state of Armenia and southern Turkey to Italy and French Syria), although not entire thing but only the western part of Turkey, going from the strait all the way down to the coasts near Rhodos. Why only that ? Due to the american influence the borders of the new Europe were meant to follow national lines (Hungary for hungarians, Czechoslovakia for czechs and slovaks, etc), and so Greece was supposed to gain the Turkish lands that had Greek population in them.
According to plan, which failed.
A military faction of competent troops and commanders under Mustafa Kemal took over the government in Ankara and fought back the French and then the Greek occupation forces, pushing them out of the country (Except for the surroundings of Adana, kept by the French) and this became known as the Turkish war for independence and the Greko-Turkish War.
This was such a well-created video! The flow of information was essentially perfect lol
The UK isn't over, countries decline yes but they will be reborn they will endure
What I think a lot of people don't understand about Plato's Republic, is that its not actually about politics. The entire allegory of the perfect city is meant to just be a metaphor for a person, and how to individually be moral and just. It isn't really meant to be a good system in itself. Which, unfortunately, large numbers of tyrants have decided to ignore or were too self-obsessed to realize.
Possibly Sargon's best video ever.
Plato's principle is present even in the medieval society (philosophers = Church, guardians = aristocracy i.e. warrior class, workers = peasants). It caused 1000 years of stability, or better stagnation. Aristotle's principle shaped Modernity, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment. The state was supposed to be based on a social contract according to Rousseau. And this is the idea of our modern democracies.
Interestingly neither the Stoics nor the Epicureans agreed with Plato. Still Neo-Platonism was, what gave rise to Christianity and the medieval society that followed. This is also visible in the medieval philosophy of scholasticism, which was strictly top down, based on idealistic principles. It was Modernity that reintroduced Aristotelian empiricism and with it the idea that abstract principles like the state are derived from the multitude of individual instances, i.e. the state is formed by its citizens.
When will we finally get over this stupid dark age myth. There was tons of technological, artistic, and scientific advancement that took place during the medieval period.
False, western phylosophy was based on Aristotle in the middle ages and the scholastics were especially not neo-platonists. Neo-Platonism was strong in the eastern church mostly and only became popular for a short time in the Rennesance in the west. Other false narrative is the stangation in the middle ages, entirly basless. After the stabilisation of the west in the early middle ages Europe showed a very high growth rate especially after 1000 until the Black Death thet stoped it for a short while, but after the disaster the growth started again until the late early modern period, in most coutnrise even until the 20th century. This is not just about the population but thecnology as well, in the middle ages especially the agrarian revolution is not worthy, but the phylosophical and theological as well as the architectural development is pretty impressive in the era as well.
But this would lead to flawed democracies, something Socrates was rightly concerned with.
In my mind, Plato's ideas provided a structure/framework, whilst Aristotle's provided the method, and Socrates provided the guardrails.
A republic with democratic mechanisms that exists to protect individual rights.
The best system we've come up with beyond an actual benevolent dictatorship...
Aristotle's Politics still rings true today, you can look at most things and politics and can find an answer in his work. He was able to see the world for what it is, and not what he thought it ought to be.
Plato's ideas of utopia are a fucking nightmare.
Dude all these years and I think this is your best one. You have a lot of great ones but this one is a1.
Bro is back on RUclips coming in hot with foundational content.
your knowledge is contagious and very refreshing. honestly your on par with jordan peterson, next level insights and wisdom. great work✌️
Plato: "My people are idiots. I must keep them in place to make them useful."
Aristotle: "My people are only as dumb as nature allows them to be."
I would love it if you did a breakdown of Aristotle’s virtue ethics.
I would too, but since he's a believer in virtue ethics I wouldn't expect him to address the fundamental flaw in it (which is the same as naturalism, whereby what is "natural" and "good" do not follow from each other, and where virtue theory ignores the ability of humans to simply choose otherwise).
Explained very well! Thank you.
I am a proud Platonist.
And no, our ruling class is in no way Platonic, they worship inferior things while killing superior things, they serve the adversary rather than the Being.
@@Wully02 Plus, with the way they maneuver and scheme within politics, aligns quite closely with Aristotle's realpolitik.
This is a fantastic piece
2:00 Just to clarify, the "Workers" or "Bronze" class, would also be the filthy rich. The silver and definitely gold class wouldn't be able to own private property. We definitely have different interpretations of Plato's Republic. The key here is that everyone has their own nature and when they perform what their nature is attuned for, it will benefit society. As an example, if a soldier were to take on the role of a shoemaker and a shoemaker were to take on the role of a soldier, their'd be a disaster. The shoemaker-turned-soldier would lack the skills/spirit and discipline needed to protect the city, while the soldier-turned-shoemaker would produce poor-quality footwear. The army, wearing subpar shoes, would likely cripple itself on the march and surrender to the enemy. Point being Sargon, Socrates' was saying when people are not aligned with their true purpose or nature, it leads to a failure of the state and dysfunction of the polis. It's why he didn't even want to have a "reservist" component of the military. The Philosopher King, ideally, would be wise enough to both see through the constraints of 'trending morality' and 'traditional morality.' I should also note, that Socrates didn't like democracy because it "made equals of unequals" which is why I think the Starship Troopers government model is closer to Plato's Republic than would you are putting forward (with respect). All that said, if you read this comment and disagree with me, Socrates would want that because there was nothing that guy wouldn't argue over. Dude was hilarious as much as he was wise.
What determines who is a soldier and who is a shoemaker, though, in such a society?
@@TheLurker1647 A very good question! In theory, the classes would decided who was eligible to enter. There would also be an obvious self-selection, so for example, if you showed during your upbringing, a particular interest and keenness for, say, blacksmithing, shoemaking, etc. than you would pursue your passion. However, for the higher classes we can use the general outline for who could become the philosopher king. The philosopher king could also be a Woman, and women could also be soldiers if their nature was attuned for it just as men, this was very controversial at the time, but Socrates put that forward. Anyways, First, you had to have high athleticism and fitness, Socrates gave very heavy emphasis to the gym which is often a meme, it's also one of the reasons he liked how Sparta were training their youth. During your training, you would constantly be evaluated, and after being a soldier and first seeing battle than leading in battle, you would carry on under constant evaluation of your peers. You'd vigorously train and study philosophy which was a field that encompassed virtually everything back in its day. In this system, there wouldn't be the "Nuclear Family" but rather, everyone lived communally with the exception of the bronze class who could retain the nuclear family system. Another note, you also had to be good looking haha, no word of a lie, you'd better be pretty and handsome AF if you wanted to be the on top, that was specifically noted by Socrates who himself had made fun of himself for not being particularly handsome. In the end, Lurker, your line of questioning breaks Plato's theory because it eventually would get to questioning the validity of "The Forms" theory that Socrates had put forward in that how can we really know anything and therefor every system is vulnerable to corruption whether intended or not (i.e. deliberate corruption vs bureaucracy).
to add a bit to the final thought in the video: one of the factors as to why Athens endured while Sparta faded was a fact that the Athenians by en large correctly assessed, which is that a life one enjoys is a life worth fighting hard for, while Spartans were in favor of a much more uptight, war-oriented lifestyle for their people, which wasn't as popular with the people of the vassal states the Spartans had conquered or allied with. The Spartans did not promote their way of life beyond their city state, to expand their power and influence and make an empire (and thus have a better chance of surviving against the more powerful enemies like Rome & barbarians that ultimately destroyed it), while the Athenians succeeded at this very thing
In the foreword to Republic it is mentioned that the perfect city envisioned by Plato is a thought experiment meant to showcase how one should structure one's mind to find goodness. (That is my memory of the page, you may refute me if it is too inaccurate to the wording of the book.) Plato himself says in Republic that his hypothetical state couldn't exist in reality and that it would degenerate over time as all things do. Plato's thought experiment was never a vision of how the world should be, but how your mind should be. At least that is as I've understood the book. I am glad to be proven wrong if I am wrong, I just feel like it is false to say that Plato wanted to implement this state in reality.
I think he wanted to but knew he couldn't because humans are just too fallible.
@Richforce1 I suppose? But as stated, the perfect society he describes is a thought experiment to locate morality in your mind, not an actual proposal for a realistic society.
this 10000 times, wtf
@@storytellingchampion6438 kind of reduces Plato's thought experiment into the hierarchy of needs pyramid, doesn't it?
@@cyberpunk2453 How do you mean?
Hi, I think it would be grate to see ricky gervais on the lotus eaters. He has some very interesting views on his BALR YT channel. He seems to be on the same page as you guys.
P.S.
Thank you Carl for all the hard work you have done for all of us over the years.
Virgin Plato vs. Chad Aristotle
Thad Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Sigma Diogenes
@@heavywestern5943lol
You realize Diogenes is the best philosopher at the end of the day
brilliant sir!
Good Afternoon Sargon.
"The more you tighten your grip, Governor Tarkin, the mote star systems will slip through your fingers."
Not to defend Plato, but Plato would have been opposed to infinity immigration because it jeopardizes the stability of the state. So, even by this standard, Two-tier Kier fails.
Well done sir. I have been saying this forever. As far as I know we here in the US were all taught that our society was founded on neo platonic ideas but almost nobody seems to connect the dots.
so crazy to think the height of culture was thousands of years ago, and we've been living amongst the rubble ever since.
The timeline is probably a lie since the 1700's.
And to be honest it wasn't all that high. The true great heights will be in a new heaven and new earth, come Lord Jesus 🙏🙏🙏
@@Richforce1 Christian bots everywhere
That was probably a lie
@@thedeviousgreek1540 better than the other bots
Another excellent evaluation 👏
Maturing is knowing that we live in Athens and should be living in Sparta.
In any case, Platonists will tell you that Aristotle and Plato are not truly opposed, and all of western society is better for it. The modern zeitgeist against Plato is nonsense.
10:48 That's a Trinity I can comprehend and accept.
"Babe wake up, Sargon of Akkad just dropped a vid"
YAYA
- He said to his hand
Well thought out and the message is true!!!
Aristotle > Plato.
*Christ reconciles the dialectic by giving meta and material emancipation from the abstract.
Plato for religion.
Aristotle for the natural world.
Fascinating, thank you
Plato was a gnostic in thought, you can tell this via his Cave allegory and what this video expresses. His world view, which was molded by his mentor, Heraclitus, also a gnostic, has been damaging to intellectual pursuit and is one of the main reasons we are in the state we find ourselves.
He was also pro-pederasty up until his final years but im sure that's totally a coincidence as well.
Plato was not gnostic. This is a facial misreading, and quite easy to find evidence of the contrary.
If there's any doubt, might I remind you that the Gospel of John isn't gnostic simply for speaking from a non-materialist frame of reference either.
These foundations of Western Culture should be required reading for ALL CHILDREN. Even if someone is allowing their children to be "educated" by the state, they should take the time to familiarize themselves and their family with the Great Books of the Western World.
You know maybe Socrates had a point.
🎩
🐍 no step on snek🇺🇸🇭🇰
No, Plato was right. You have it wrong. The problem you're having is that you want to hold onto liberal ideas of freedom and tolerance while also holding onto tradition and order. You cannot have both. You either have order/tradition or freedom/chaos. If you try to mix the approaches, it doesn't work.
It's not Freedom or Order we should hold onto, but God. Come Lord Jesus 🙏🙏🙏
Find it so intriguing how even 2500 years ago there were utopian ideologues who believed philosophers, academics are also at the top of the social hierarchy with the ruling elites.
"The lands of the whole state Lycurgus divided equally among all, that equality of possession might leave no one more powerful than another. He ordered all to take their meals in public, that no man might secretly indulge in splendour of luxury."
The men of Sparta were permitted " to form promiscuous connections with all the women of the city, thinking that conception would be more speedy if each of the females made the experiment with several men."
They were crazy slaver war commies (it was banned to do any work except war too)
They were also great philosophers and respected as a people. Spartan history as is taught today is just a parody.
@@thedeviousgreek1540 Citation, Spartans, on Spartans.
@@thedeviousgreek1540 People belive in every source they read. It is pretty sad how little critical thinking is used with historical sources.
@@cyberpunk2453 The whole of Greece respected them plus the Romans.
@@thedeviousgreek1540 - i dunno why people read secondary sources when stuff like xenophon (recent translations at least) is readable and informative.
I think they're massively overrated (polybius assessment of them as "stable which is good but too stable so couldn't grow" to paraphrase, seems correct).
If you haven't done so already, Carl, I would STRONGLY recommend Arthur Herman's history, *The Cave and the Light,* a grand historical tour of the West via the frame of its two most fundamental philosophers.
I like Plato's four cardinal virtues. They make it easy for me to describe how a person should act. Unfortunately, most of Plato's other contributions to Philosophy are pretty frustrating to put it mildly.
Wow, finally someone said this. Those virtues are far superior to the Mosaic (oriental) Revelation
I need to look into the mosaic revelation, but as it stands I love the cardinal virtues. It just sucks the guy who coined them was applying them incorrectly, but at least Aristotle had some sense.
I'm gonna spend a good week unpacking this, but at first blush: Lycurgus was right, but only insofar as he wanted a static system to produce hard men.
Mankind hates static systems (cue Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground.)
So the Aristotelian answer is a scaffolding that provides for individual sovereignty in the face of uncertainty.
I like it.
Aristoteles sounds like someone who cleaned his room.
Not entirely related but I feel like Sparta was the inspiration for the Klingons (or any sci-fi that has a tribe devoted to warfare at the expense of anything else)
Brilliant! Next stop, St. Thomas Aquinas!
Of course philosophers and managers want the stability of Plato's Republic. They want to be in charge forever, living a life of leasure and pleasure, never understanding the despots and tyrants they would be.
2016 vibes
Man 2016 feels like both ancient history and just yesterday at the same time... strange sensation.
Ikr, takes me back to why I first started following Sargon. . .
Like or Dislike: Like. But the argument fails because conservatism is the movement that opposes change.
THIS IS…. Er….Athens probably
I just starting reading Thucydides, great start so far
I don't want to live in either Athens or Sparta. Roma Invicta. Roma Aeterna.
I'd rather the new Jerusalem, come Lord Jesus 🙏🙏🙏
Fascinating analysis.
I wonder how much the Platonic influence on Christian theology has encouraged this trend. The apol sovereign God who determines all things reaching its apex of expression in Calvinism seems tailor made to encourage enforced rather than grown virtue.
As a Latter-day Saint I have been raised on a concept of Devine governance that is more at home in Aristotle's polis than Plato's Republic.
"I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." JS Jr.
Hey Sargon
For anyone else interested in the dichotomy between Platonic and Aristotelian thought, Leonard Peikoff has a 50 part history of philosophy series that traces the divergence of the two schools throughout history on RUclips.
He is an Objectivist but he does a fair treatment of the topic and explicitly states when he is speaking from an Objectivist POV. He is entirely biased towards Aristotle but is explicit about this bias making it easy to parse through it whereas most professors try to hide their bias by claiming a false position of impartiality.
Anyone who is a fan of Dr. Michael Sugrue's lectures will most definitely appreciate Peikoff.
Interesting. I would add that I wish Carl announced when he was speaking from his POV, because emphatically Aristotle's philosophy was flawed both by the ability of humans to choose otherwise (from the good and just) and the putative definition that "natural = good" (which is ontologically incorrect).
@@bakerboat4572 Who's Carl lol?
Hello old bean🤪👉🇬🇧
I don't think I'm being over confident when I say the right will mop the floor with the left