I sense a great disturbance in the aether: as though millions of philosophasters cried out in terror, and then broke into a cacophony of circular arguments, personal insults, and a vigorous round of "no u."
Trigonometry was actually my favorite part of mathematics as a kid, which is why I apologized to my old math teacher for forgetting most of it when I met him as an adult.
Suddenly a lot of the Church's repression of Gnostics and others makes sense. Especially since the message of Christianity is and has always been that salvation is offered freely to all. No one can give you salvation, you have to accept it yourself. There's no enlightenment or mystic journey process, no hidden knowledge or esoteric rules. It's all laid out very clearly in the Gospels, have faith and love thy neighbor as thyself, and that is how you live a good life and afterlife. There may be irony in it but the saying "What would Jesus Do?" might be the best answer to these cultists. And in the Bible Christ helped many, and selflessly healed the sick, preached love, and died on a cross for the sins of Humanity. But Jesus also drove out the money changers and rebuked those lacking in faith or righteousness. So I guess the message would be that like Jesus while our love of others should be unconditional, but our aid and protection should not, lest we become overly permissive. Jordan Peterson talked about something similar in needing both love and justice in our world but the exact words escape me now.
One (of the) thing about Jesus I've always found weird; What's the deal with the money changers? Was it them doing business in the temple that was the problem, or the fact that they were money changers?
@@SoMuchFacepalm I would say more that they were doing business in the temple since Jesus openly associated with tax collectors, who though reformed and penitent were of a similar ilk. And in addition you have the famous render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's line that more broadly means accepting the objective reality of the world while maintaining faith.
Rather than bringing their own sacrifices, worshippers had to change their Roman money into "temple" money that they then used to buy ritual animals for sacrifice. As the Pharisees (and perhaps the Sadducees) owned both the moneychangers and the ritual animals, you can imagine the kind of profit they were making. Jesus rarely had a good word against the Pharisees as he saw them as taking advantage of the people. Hence the driving off of the moneychangers, and their decision to kill him, inadvertently fulfilling the scripture.
@@EdiTheDon depending on your interpretation this could be used as an argument against monopolies as the Pharisees and Sadducees had complete control over access to ritual and sacrifice in the Temple and used this absolute control for their enrichment. Then Jesus drives out the money changers, symbolically showing how there should be no barriers to faith, for it is you yourself that stands before God, not your tribe, nation, or family, You and only You must answer if your heart has faith and you lived a righteous life.
@@EdiTheDon As I recall, it was even worse than that. I remember reading somewhere that even if you brought your own sacrifice (many people were herders at the time), the priest examining the sacrifice would find some form of blemish on it, making it unfit to sacrifice, then offer you a "temple certified" animal instead. This explains why Christ also drove out the ritual animals as well.
I apologise for what passes as 'french thought', the majority of the 20th centuary to today is complete socialist idiocy and perversion, better to stick to the likes of decartes, montaigne, moliére.. far better..
"If they can get you to reject reason, they can get you to reject reality." This is, no joke, the central theme to everything influential that Umberto Eco wrote, and is how he himself routinely redefines basic terms and even reality itself to suit his narratives.
@@aleksazunjic9672 Gödel's incompleteness theorems are really about how predicate logical systems are no stronger than Number Theory. And that those logical systems are either incomplete or inconsistent. Both cases can be useful. And both need to handled carefully.
@@jackee-is-silent2938 In broader sense, Gödel's incompleteness theorems are about limitations of logic and human (rational) mind. In other words, we are either incomplete or inconsistent , and could never prove our consistency on our own. There would always be statements that are true but we cannot prove it.
As a Christian this is very interesting. The huge mistake Hegel made was the idea God was dependent on his own existence. This hubris is the downfall of so many.
I don't think the vague descriptions of the Christian god is any better than the Hegel descriptions of his god...they both seem like unfounded claims not based in reality.
As a Christian, I may be able give an answer to what traditional Christianity would say theologically to the idea that "God can do anything, so can also not exist,". This is essentially similar to the question "God can do anything, so can't he create something bigger than Himself,". God in the Christian view is omnipotent, so He can do all things, yes. However, He cannot do a thing that is not a thing, this is a contradiction. If something is bigger than God, then that is a contradiction. The example that is often used is "God cannot make a trianglesquare". He can make a square in a triangle or a triangle in a square. Or a third shape we call in our language triangle-square. But not a trianglesquare. As mentioned above, he can do anything, but that is not a thing. That is a contradiction. The idea of God making himself not exist is similar. God, in the Christian view is by His nature the existent first mover of reality. The concept of God making Himself not, in the Christian view, a thing. It is a contradiction. Another massive reason this would be considered impossible is that God is thought to exist outside of time and space. Therefor, His nature does not change and is consistent. So essentially, if He exists at once, He exists for the rest of time. Secondly, depending on what you are referring to with "don't say God's real name," there is also a reason for that as well. This comes from the book of Exodus where God gives his name as "YHWH". This translates to "I Am,". In Judaism (as well as to an extent early Christianity) this name was avoided because saying the name of God "I Am" could be interpreted as making the impious claim that one is God. According most interpretations of the New Testament, this is what gets Christ in trouble with the Pharisees. Other names of God however (Elohim, Adonai, etc) were generally considered acceptable to say aloud. I hope I explained that somewhat well. Overall, love the content man, keep at it. Well wishes from the US.
I look at the existence of God through the lens of physics. If one looks at explanations of the universe through concepts like string theory, then our reality is basically a four-dimensional space (length, width, depth and time, perhaps) existing within a much larger reality of multiple dimensions. God is a multi-dimensional being who exists outside of our reality, and perhaps on a higher plane than all the dimensions that make up the multiverse. In other words, God exists outside of time, and indeed time has no meaning to God. God exists outside of physical reality, and is omnipotent because He can make changes to any and all dimensions. This also means God is omnipresent, because He can be present in any dimension at any time and place of His choosing, and influence it as He desires. Also, being omnipotent and existing outside of time does present an issue for God, in that He can see ALL outcomes of decisions that are made by us humans. Every time we come to a point where we make a decision, there is a fork in the road. Every choice leads to other choices, creating a life path that is like a growing tree, or perhaps better described as a root system. We can only see what is in front of us, but God sees the entire root system. On top of that, He can see how our individual root system of potential choices interacts with all the others that we make contact with throughout our lives. This is why God does not usually interfere with our lives or with history, because He knows how one small change can ripple throughout the system. It also takes away one of the greatest gifts God has given us, freedom of choice. If we are to receive the gift of eternal life, we need to show we are deserving of it through how we interact with others. After all, if one is a paranoid murdering psychopath, would one ever find happiness in a kingdom where kindness and mercy are the order of the day? And wouldn't those stains on the soul become the sources of the fire that destroys the soul in the light of God Himself?
Certainly, to a Christian the "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it" would be more a word game than a real question, God is all powerful, so anything he creates is lesser than him. The people who do think that God just keeps going up and up are Mormons, who believe in an infinite number of gods, YHWH being just one, the lowest.
@@aleksazunjic9672 God did not die in His divine nature, as that is impossible, being a contradiction. The man Jesus Christ died on the cross. However, since Jesus is the same Person as the second Person of the Trinity, whatever He does in His humanity can be attributed to His Deity, and what He does in His Deity can be attributed to His humanity. Thus, it becomes possible in this way for God to die for our sins.
@@bigscarysteve This is the human interpretation, in order to satisfy requirements of human logic. However, God is illogical, un-reasonable ... cannot be comprehended by mind (or law, as mentioned in scriptures). Thus, God did die on the cross. One and only God. No matter how paradoxical and absurd it sounds. This is the core of Hegel's unity of opposites. Two opposites come together, to create something entirely new. God did not die for our sins, He died to give us Life.
20:44 _Heraclitus said: "You can't step into the same river twice."_ No, he said: "You *can* step into the same river twice - and at the same time, you can not. This is even more radical because it shows how much this philosophy embraces contradiction.
But both those statements are true in a different sense? It is and is not the same river similar to how people change across time.
9 месяцев назад+4
@conforzo Reality isn't contradictory, definitions are abstract for the sake of speed.
9 месяцев назад+6
@horstnietzsche1923 It is the same river as it is the same you. Replacing a small part obscures the definition but remember the definition of river and you include time diffused states.
9 месяцев назад+3
@conforzo No, it's a failure to understand the nature of language. Sad.
9 месяцев назад+1
@conforzo I did already. Language is an abstraction for arbitrary precision. Same as math just harder to see. Definitions are fuzzy, that's why languages work, but why so many slightly above average iqs get stuck on the roadblock of literal points of words rather than the abstract communication at the heart of words. It's a misunderstanding of the base of learning ironically.
Communism is a branch of Socialism, there is no real difference. Just as fascism and national Socialism are all branches of Socialism. The core is the same with semantic differences. The result is death, destruction, poverty and misery regardless of which branch you choose.
It's telling that many people in the comments have read or been told that "this means this" and as such they think TIK is wrong with the argument "you interpret it wrongly". But TIK's whole argument is that these kind of texts have been interpreted by people over time and lead to many different beliefs and many of them are really messed up and damaging to people and society. Point being if TIK interprets the meaning as shown in the video and others interpret the same meaning then what kind of argument is "i dont agree with you interpretation"? The bread crumbs are there, TIK is following them, your personal interpretation doesn't change anything about that...
But Hegel went against basic Christian theology. God NEEDING humans for... well, anything, is blasphemy. Humans being righteous spirits trapped in human body is also deeply anti-Christian. In fact, we know that since as early as Apostles Christians were condemning gnostics (who held that belief). So no, not every interpretation is correct or valid. If i say "i'm hungry" but you interpret that as me being sleepy - that's just incorrect interpretation, no matter how much mental gymnastics you perform to reach that conclusion. Also, while you see the nod to "world of ideas" in John 1:1-5, it requires certain knowlegde of Early Christian missionary work, that focused on "seeds of truth" in worldviews of target audience to draw parallels between that worldview and Christianity (which would help non-Jewish audience that didn't know the Old Testament to understand concepts of the Gospel). Doesn't mean Christianity drew inspiration from there. Most likely early authors weren't even aware of those schools of thought when the core of the theology was formed, they just later tried to use whatever available to explain Christianity to people (Acts 17 is clearer example of that). So just because you can interpret so.ething incorrectly, doesn't mean people shouldn't point out obvious issues. Hegel would be excommunicated from the most Churches today for his blasphemous gnostic views. So taking them as one legitimate interpretation of Christian Scripture is simply wrong.
I bought a book about Hegel once. After 10 pages I got a headache because of the complexity of the language and lack of actual content in the sentences. I have been having similar discoveries around the ideological types. I've found the best way is to just ask questions. Usually they get agressive when you dont understand their obvious gibberish.
@sortebill The part is where the importance of who you ask your questions is completely absent. I can't comprehend why. It doesn't help if you ask fools, like this guy who made this video, they kust gonna confuse you even more.
He also referred to him as a "A flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan" which might be the greatest and most accurate insult in history
Schopenhauer was also angered by the fact that Hegel's courses were often swelling with student's while very few bothered to attend his. Once Schopenhauer performed an experiment whereby he schedueled his lecture to take place at the exact time as Hegel's and was outraged to find that only 5 came to his while over 200 were cramming in other university room just to hear the discourse of the former.
It would be even easier to make a stupid video about how Schopenhauer is responsible for nazism than Hegel but let's not give this guy too many ideas...
00:04 🧠 Ideologues often evade providing clear definitions or answers, resorting to vague, abstract concepts, making meaningful discourse challenging. 02:55 🤯 Ideobabble, characterized by complex, unintelligible language, serves to exclude those outside the ideological circle, perpetuating confusion. 06:12 💡 Ideologues prioritize abstract ideas over concrete reality, communicating in nebulous terms to assert superiority and justify entitlement. 07:59 📜 Hegel's philosophy, influencing Marxism, Fascism, and National Socialism, centers on the idea of humanity as a mirror reflecting God, seeking self-completion. 16:14 ❄ Early philosophers like Thales and Pythagoras, influenced by mystic beliefs, laid groundwork for ideologies merging religion and philosophy. 19:56 🔀 Heraclitus' emphasis on change and contradiction profoundly impacted philosophy, despite some notions being logically flawed. 22:11 💡 Hegel's concept of "Aufheben" influenced Marx's Historical Materialism, emphasizing change. 23:02 🔄 Fascist and Marxist ideologies derive their emphasis on change and struggle from Heraclitus's philosophy. 24:54 🌍 Movements like Marxism and Fascism prioritize change and abstract concepts over concrete policies. 26:43 🤔 Heraclitus's philosophy challenges the concept of reality, proposing two realms: Appearance and Reality. 28:33 🕵♂ Cults manipulate followers by undermining self-esteem and promoting blind faith over reason. 30:56 🧠 Plato's World of Forms suggests a reality beyond the material realm, influencing subsequent philosophical thought. 34:37 🎩 Hegel's dialectic aims to reconcile contradictions, leading to the transcendence of material reality. 38:20 🔄 Hegel's dialectic mirrors the Christian Trinity, emphasizing a process of synthesis towards higher understanding. 39:42 🌌 Dialectical Materialism seeks to transcend material reality through the reconciliation of contradictions. 42:55 🕊 Hegel's approach to God avoids defining Him directly to avoid self-refutation within his dialectic. 45:35 💭 Hegel aims to destroy his conscious mind to approach unconsciousness, believing it brings him closer to God, echoing a desire for unthinking obedience seen in cults like National Socialism. 46:57 🧠 Coercive persuasion in cults leads to dependency on the group, eroding critical thinking and reality perception, fostering unthinking obedience. 48:22 🚶♂ Marching in movements like National Socialism served to divert thoughts, kill individuality, and foster a sense of community through mechanical, ritualistic activities. 49:43 🌟 Destructive cult leaders often possess messianic visions, seeking to change the world for their own purposes, echoing traits seen in Marxists, according to Ross from "Cults Inside Out." 50:39 🎩 Hegel's pursuit of Absolute Knowledge parallels cult leadership, with followers like Marx, Gentile, and Hitler adopting similar tactics. 51:31 🌐 Ideologues avoid defining terms like socialism to maintain a magical abstraction, preventing concrete definitions that could undermine their ideologies. 52:52 🔄 Ideologues resist defining concepts to preserve their magical abstracts, aligning with dialectical materialism's rejection of materialism and preference for abstraction. 53:46 ⚠ Ideobabble perpetuated by ideologues seeks to manipulate minds, leading followers to delusion and mental instability, urging viewers to ground themselves in objective reality.
" *Heraclitus' emphasis on change and contradiction profoundly impacted philosophy, despite some notions being logically flawed.* " They were not flawed. When Schliemann have found Troy, it was in ruins. Was it "the same" Troy as that of Iliad? No, it was different, yet still the same. TiK claims that it's a false contradiction, because it's the same city. Well, it was just a mound of dirt by then, so not even a city. How can something be considered to be "the same city", when it's not even a city anymore? The contradiction is real, if a statement can *only* be either true or false, with no in-betweens. That's not true, though. We've known that truth can be a function with possible values from 0 to 1 only for a relatively short time. TiK still doesn't seem to understand it.
@@bakters Man, this is just the ship of Theseus. There's no contradiction. Just because something isn't currently identical to a past version doesn't mean we can't tell if it's related in any way, like being the same thing at a different point in time, for example. There is a continuum that we call, 'the ship' that covers the entirety of it's existence. Sure the boundaries can be subjective and arbitrary, but so is the category we made for it. The category can have arbitrary and subjectively chosen boundaries that are nonetheless objective, based in objective reality. Therefore, yes, Troy IS the same city. Just as it was the same residential area when it became a city as it was when it was a town. It's crossing from one arbitrarily defined state to another doesn't result in it's replacement with something else. The old stuff is still there, unchanged, while new stuff has been added, changing the whole. No contradiction, just terminology that doesn't describe something in it's entirety, because describing something by, for example, listing the location and type of every atom in it's structure is unnecessarily complicated.(for most of us, anyway)
Hahaaa!!! I'm dying here!! Your response to the youtube critic, or whatever they are, is absolutely legendary. I wasn't ready for it and you caught me off guard. Was in the middle of drinking a Mello Yello that ultimately ended up on me and the floor. As far as I'm concerned you are now a legend! Just awesome. Also, I am enjoying your videos very much. Just full of good stuff. Appreciate your time and effort.👍🏼
@@NoPrivateProperty Found one of the loser brigade who's probably subscribed so he can frantically downvote the video and launch strawmen to damage control.
Native German speaker here, the pronunciation isn't even close to "boomer" but English doesn't have an "ö" sound so I'm not complaining about the lack of accurary - just that this makes it not really funny since it's based on a mispronunciation. (in case you're interested, google translate auto detects Böhme as a German word and gives you an accurate German pronunciation. Just for fun: It also gives you stereotypical accents when you let the voice from one language pronounce words from others. French voice pronouncing the word "hilarious" is indeed hilarious btw xD)
@@thulyblu5486 i as a swede grew up with the sounds of Å Ä Ö and one day I thought "how do i explain the pronounciation to an english speaker" and I remember actually succeeding with it I.E finding words where the sound was present, I cant actually remember what the words were but I do remember finding atleast 1 word where one or two of the letters in it made the same sound as Å Ä or Ö for each of those letters
Schopenhauer famously described Hegel's work as "a pseudo-philosophy that cripples all mental powers, suffocates real thinking and substitutes by means of the most outrageous use of language the hollowest, the most devoid of sense, the most thoughtless, and, as the outcome confirms, the most stupefying jumble of words”.
Actually Pythagoras is used every day. If you are an electrician you use it to calculate the waveform of current although you only do it manually at school and a machine does the job otherwise it wouldn’t be possible if he hadn’t discovered the formula.
When Econ professor Bryan Caplan was promoting his book "The Case Against Education" he would make the comment about never using Pythagoras' Theorem but learning it was still useful. And that is true for Liberal Arts/social science majors but in the trades it is used daily. Even if just by the 3-4-5 rule to square a corner.
Statement Analysis says that the people do that (never clearly define things) as "hedging their bets", allowing them to say later on that you "miss understood them" and then change their meaning. Rinse and repeat.
@@SoMuchFacepalm Plausible deniability is putting on the appearance you don't know something so you don't have to stop it; this is closer to a motte-and-bailey argument.
@@boobah5643 Eh, I'd call it false equivocation. Plausible deniability is just the benefit you get out of it. Of course, you also get plausible deniability from the motte-and-bailey, playing dumb, Tu Quo Que (in some circumstances) so it's really the same thing in the end. They're lying, and we know that they are lying consciously, because of the effort they go to to cover it up.
Exactly. Hagel's dialectic functions as an underhanded means of fortifying a conjecture against valid criticisms, by making the claim purposefully vague and fluid in its meaning. In contrast, when a conjecture is made in good faith, it will be constructed as simply as possible, devoid of ambiguous language and will often be supported by a set of foundational premises; thereby demonstrating a degree of confidence, since the scholar has deliberately chosen to make the refutation process less difficult for detractors of the claim.
Plato's demiurge is not the ancestor of God in the Christian teaching. In fact the idea of a demiurge is a heresy that has surfaced time and time again, eg Catharism.
There seems to be broadly two types of people, one hears ideobabble and thinks "this makes no sense, that guy is an idiot" while the other thinks "this makes no sense, that guy is a genius."
You know, for a long time in my early life, I would hear of it, and then think "this isn't making sense to me, I feel like an idiot", sometimes I followed up by actually saying "This isn't making sense to me, please help me understand and not be an idiot." Interestingly, the results I'd get from trying to ask this varied greatly, but patterns have emerged. The dismissive responses can be really indicative. This comment was brought to you by the contrarian association of definitely not contrarianism (My apologies. I really am feeling oppositional today, it's a little bit of an ahole thing, but it's not aholeness for aholeness' sake if you know what I mean.)
@@chillinchum The problem for the Marxist is that many don't even read Marx, so you ask them questions and they will say "educate yourself" or "my job isn't to educate you".
People saying "this make no sense" are simply sheep in the pen. They live in their small world, one day they will die and that is about it. People who try to understand ... well, they at least have a chance. No matter how small.
TIK's videos should be shown in schools and academia. As someone who lived in a Socialist country with a single party (called the Communist Party) behind the Iron Curtain, his videos struck a cord.
It's really sad how people are still living through the horrors of socialism in present day, and all these academic numbskulls in western countries are trying to bring it here. We should be well past the point where we toss socialism in the proverbial dumpster of terrible ideas we never try again. At this point it's as stupid as triangle shaped wheels.
Dear TIK just wanted to recommend you a certain book for future. It's name is "Conversations with an Executioner" by Kazimierz Mocarski. The autor was high ranked officer of Polish resistance AK and after the war he was imprisoned by the newly established communist regime as potentially dangerous. He was hold in one cell with Nazi war criminal Jürgen Stroop himself by months. Durning this time Moczarski heard a lot of stories from Jürgen about his Weltanschaltung starting his service durning WWI, first steps in the SS and pacification of Warsaw ghetto uprising. This book is absolutely must read for everyone who wants to know more about Nazi ideology and how it was applied in real life. Apart from that I finished Stalingrad recently and I deeply amazed by your work. I wonder if would you analyse how accurate is German war film Stalingrad from 1993 like you done with Come and see. I think no one is as overqualified to do such video as you. Greetings from Poland
Oh yeah I'll get that and put on my bookshelf with the other ones An Angel at the Fence by Herman Rosenblat Surviving with Wolves by Misha Defonseca Binjamin Wilkomirski's Fragments The Fifth Diamond, by Irene Zisblatt The Painted Bird by jerzy kosinski
To this day, Hegel's greatest enemy is considered to be his contemporary Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) Hegelianism (= ideobabble) is a polemical term coined by the famous philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer for incomprehensible, mystifying language that is intended to create the impression of intellectual depth, complexity and importance, but is in fact largely devoid of content, thus enabling only minimal, if any, gain in knowledge and often even leading to intellectual and conceptual confusion. In Schopenhauer's view, the philosophy of Hegel and his successors, the so-called Hegelians, is characterized by precisely these qualities. Schopenhauer also referred to it as "philosophasterei" or charlatanry".
Last year I read Roger Scruton's "Fools, Firebrands & Frauds: Thinkers of the New Left" and it covers Sartre, Badiou, Foucault, Zizek, Galbraith and a whole host of others whose ideas become indistinguishable from each other. Every single one of these 20th century Marxist "thinkers" thinks in gibberish. Badiou even claimed that language can be reduced to a mathematical formula where meaning only has meaning if it assigned a value. Scruton's opinion is that all of this ideological babble is designed to undermine what already exists and to unbalance people in order to move towards a vague, unnamed utopia.
I'll definetily give Sir Roger's book a look. He's a philosopher I deeply admire for speaking clearly. The only reason I'm watching this video in the first place is because I notice a cult-like devotion to Hegel from several people of the "intellectual" left
"Badiou even claimed that language can be reduced to a mathematical formula where meaning only has meaning if it assigned a value." This is exactly how it works and it is the precise opposite of post-modernism.
You're really not understanding Heraclitus. He is not saying everything isn't real, he's saying everything is in motion and our perception of the world is imperfect. He is not saying there is literally a second reality that's more real than the one we experience, he is saying that we have an imperfect understanding of the world around us, so we think and act in relation to this incomplete perception of the world, rather than in relation to the world as it really is- we can only come close to understanding the world as it really is through reason. Of course, he's right about this, and it has no relation to orphic cults or 20th century cranks.
It’s not enough to these guys that you’re condemning those 20th century cranks. You still going for “reason” which to them is just more postmordern fuckery.
I said the same thing in my comment, I’m glad I’m not the only one who understands these philosophers. Unfortunately so many people who watched this are completely clueless.
I've come to the grim realization recently that the modern world consists of almost nothing but pure ideology. Most discourse functions on the basis of ideology, i.e. people hold a set of abstract propositions about how the world "ought" to be and then impose that view through various social channels (social media, news media, entertainment media, etc.) as a means to either gain social currency or to "conquer" ideological ground, while shunning and ostracizing those who do not conform. These ideologies also serve as a form of personal comfort and provide a sense of internal stability or grounding, at least on a superficial level. The distinction I make between ideology and religion is something like: religion is about what you do (how you act in day to day life, the rituals, practices and traditions you engage in) and it can also be seen as the frame through which you see the world, whereas ideology is almost purely propositional in nature. This would mean that, although there can be ideological aspects to religion, that is far from its only quality. However, taking part in this ideological way of engaging with the world can, in itself, be seen as a new form of religion, if that makes sense. And it's a very tribal, unsophisticated form of religion that leans on things like grievance, envy and resentment as its motivating forces. You can come up with as much intellectual jargon as you like, at the end of the day all you're doing is externalizing blame, engaging in petty power dynamics and doing it all with an unearned sense of virtuousness.
Actual not a great post, since ideological religions can go in all sorts of way. Post literally equivocated ideological religion with one type of ideological religion when there is an infinite amount of ideological religion that can possibly exist. In a sense every nation state that has a distinct culture can be defined as an ideological religion because that is how general the scope of the term covers.
@@henrytep8884 Like I said, the distinction I make between ideology and religion is that religion is the wider concept. Ideology is defined as a system of ideas and ideals, especially as it relates to economic and political theories and policies. In other words, ideologies themselves are mainly categorized by their propositional content, i.e. ideas that you have in your head that you believe to be true. Religion is defined (most broadly) as a system of faith or worship as well as interests and pursuits followed with great devotion. This means that religion has performative aspects. It's not just about the abstract ideas you hold in your head, it's about how you act in and see the world. So, to make it clear, you can have things like Christian ideology, but Christianity itself is not defined exclusively by its ideology. The point I was making is that, in the modern world, ideology IS the performance. Almost anything anyone ever talks or cares about is how the world ought to be in terms of economics, forms of governance or cultural norms - and that, in itself, is the performative aspect of modern, secular religions. They forego the metaphysics, spirituality, rituals and tradition of classical religions in favor of these ideological power dynamics.
Interesting comment, but it applies exclusively to Leftist/Marxist ideology, which has brutally demonized our traditions and institutions. You can't honestly claim that conservatives are primarily ideological when in fact they are quite grounded in rational policies and seek concrete solutions to real problems. That is why the Left approaches the problem of Donald Trump with hate, Fake News, propaganda, and a weaponized justice system, NEVER from a perspective of Trump's policies or what he actually says and does. The border wall, for example, whether you're in favor or not, is part of a solution to mass illegal immigration, and has nothing to do with ideology. Same goes for the preservation of free speech on campuses, opposition to Big Tech online censorship, and the fight against transgenderism in public schools, etc. All conservative issues rooted in laws and policies, NOT ideology!
The biggest critic of Plato's Forms was...Plato. The concept only came up in a few of his dialogues and he even then wrote a dialogue where he dismantles his own theory. Just because Heraclitus says that quote about a river doesn't mean he wholeheartedly agrees. We just remember he asked the question and it was a good thought experiment on the idea that things change. The materials that made you up were somewhere before you, and they will be somewhere else later.
@@dostoyevsky1222tik doesn't seem to be the right person to discuss philosophy. He's just too literal. The early Greek philosophers, as you two point out, were generally critical of concepts and didn't necessarily follow it because they talked/wrote etc about it. On the other hand, more modern pseudo philosophers like Hegel have an objective goal where they subscribe to their ideobabble. This video didn't seemed to get lost in the weeds some, the information meandered and didn't really come to a point. "Why does it matter who Hegel was?" Because he believed in a dialectic ever changing non-reality (as explained in this video) which informed the foundational "logic" of the first communist/socialist/fascist thinkers. I'm pretty sure this video topic was inspired, again, by James Lindsay, who shares that literal understanding of the philosopher chain. Not that this invalidates their conclusions, they just aren't the best at describing the concepts.
@@dostoyevsky1222 James Lindsay expands on the influence of hegel on communism et al. It's just influence, not that he came up with the concepts first. This is why I said tik gets lost in this video, it never gets tied back in. And yes, hegel was a pseudo philosopher, the same as every college freshman smoking weed for the first time. Thinking they've come up with some life altering concept, but it's just nonsense.
@@dostoyevsky1222There were two groups that came out of Hegel's ideas, and ironically James Lindsay does mention them: the young Hegelians and the old Hegelians, the former akin to socialists, the latter to fascists. One go go and investigate where the precise links are, see who quotes who, but already the scene of the crime looks very suspicious, given the location (Germany) and the timeframe (1800s).
@@dostoyevsky1222 Hegel is effectively just a step in the referential chain. Ultimately the concept is Gnowledge, gnosis. Modern marxist etc reference people like friere to justify their ideologies. People don't recognize the name and think nothing of it. Except friere foundationally cites hegel and marx etc. Think of it like modern "journalism" where the "source" is another article who circularly cites the article you're reading. "Well, they cited their sources so this must be valid" ignore the fact that the source is fundamentally flawed. Everything else is just fluff and flavor to the nonsense.
Nope. Matter and spirit (gnosis, knowledge) are thesis and anti-thesis. In perpetual struggle, yet they give birth to synthesis of something entirely new.
@@jackde5815 Hegel has no connections with Gnosticism. Gnosticism is TIK's Idée fixe 😁, secret cult that acts trough ages . Hegel simply discovered certain truth, natural law if you will.
I just have this image of Plato’s heaven being a place where if you sit down to make a painting Plato will come running up to you bawling his eyes out screeching “you ruined it! That empty canvas was a perfect form of a canvas and now it is a mere object!”
I entirely believe that Diogenes broke into Plato's heaven to do exactly this, and then lecture Plato on how he's entirely wrong. Yes, I know that's contradictory, but it's funny.
@@TallSkinnyGod Sure buddy. By those standards, the modern day Diogenes is getting spat at on the corner of an intersection while begging for money. Sounds like you should put your money where your mouth is.
From what I've heard, Hegel is infamously dense, hard to understand, and prone to using vague words that nobody else uses even in the original German. Translations only make this worse.
Wow. I have had some formal training in philosophy but this video really helped to complete a lot of thoughts and ideas that I have come into contact with over the last few years. This video and your ideas have significant value and use. I really appreciate your work, thank you.
These are my favorite videos of yours. I love your ww2 stuff but all the philosophical and religious talk behind our past and current day ills has captivated me.
The most important trick of cults is to keep the cultists in a state of perpetual confusion. It is the ability to confuse the cult members that gives the leader his power and authority and gives him the appearance of unreachable knowledge and understanding that can bring peace. Bonus points if you manipulate emotionally loaded concepts, frustrations fears and challenges and pretend to have insight to resolving them.
The fallacy and issue of cult rejectors is that you believe that the leader of a cult do not believe in his ideology. 🤦🏼 They probably do believe in it as every other member.
Hi. You underestimate the role of Kant in all that. In particular, for Plato and even for Aristotle, universals are not in the mind but exist in themselves. That is why they are never changing. It is Kant who is mainly responsible for the shift from universals to mind-related concepts, which made Hegel's dialectics possible. It is according to him, not to Plato, that the mind shapes the empirical reality. Besides, it is not insignificant that Hitler's favorite philosopher was not Hegel but Schopenhauer, who considered himself a true Kantian and Hegel as an arch-enemy. Finally, the claim that, for Marx, the material reality is fake is something new to me. Indeed, as a materialist, he must consider objects grasped by the senses ultimately real, mustn't he? How, then, could they be fake for him?
People like OP are adored by the ppl who are like “Not only does nothing good come out of leftism, but any and all kind of evil out there are only possibky leftist”
As a religious person, I strongly dislike Hegel, because I don't agree with basically anything he says, but some of his clownish ideas are often how my religion is presented by others who don't know better (but think they do). Never mind the brilliant minds of Aquinas and Gregory and so many others who could do intellectual laps around Hegel and made a strong bedrock for philosophically articulating individual rights and civil liberties. No, people just look at Hegel.
The bit about normal Christians just going by faith when responding to the contradiction of God is inaccurate. Great video about Hegel btw, but the assumption here isn't right. What Christians SHOULD say (and have said for 2000 years) is that God can't do things that are contradictory -- not because he's subject to some higher idea of logical consistency, but because logical consistency is in his nature. He IS logic, just like he IS love. He is the source of these things, so he can't act in a way that's misaligned with his being. Therefore, Christians don't just go by blind faith, and then they also solve the problem of God being a contradiction.
Roman Catholic here, thank you for actually understanding how the Christian view on God works... So many just take the modern takes on God and think it just is what it is.
@@GehrkeClinton He really is not... It's classical theism. Litteraly the simplest possible way to view God. What is a real ideobabble for example is moral oughts somehow coming to exist under atheism... Now that's a crazy one they say !
In Spain, we started recently to use the neologism "politiqués" (politiKES) to name the language that politicians use to say nothing with many words. It is more a way of using language to masquerade intentions than a real language, but I'm pretty sure you get the point. "Ideobabble", you are welcome.
If there's one thing I can say I've learned from your dives into Hegel is that, whether intentional or not, most discussions about philosophers treats the writings as if they're in a vaccuum to the detriment of understanding the full context. I greatly appreciate the focus you put on who inspired their writings, and when they were making rebuttle to other writers.
Imagine making a nearly hour-long video about Hegel's influence on political movements without once mentioning Hegel's political philosophy, or even Aristotle. It is precisely misunderstandings and intentional misrepresentations of Hegel, like this video, that are the basis of Marxism and fascism, not Hegel's philosophy. He was a constitutional monarchist, btw--along with being an Aristotelian, not a Platonist--and in his system private property was the mechanism whereby individuals secured their rights against the monarchy (thus creating a stable state). Moreover, the statement that Hegel agreed with Bohme is factually, flat-out incorrect. In the third volume of his lectures on the history of philosophy, he critiques Bohme as an incoherent mystic, even going so far as to conclude his remarks by stating that he could not reconcile himself to Bohme's philosophy--although he did admire the man's piety. As regards his philosophy of religion: its fundamental crux is that it is our duty to know God because God's nature is to be known; hence why God posits himself in opposition to himself. He states in his 'Philosophy of Mind', "What we have said above about the nature of mind is something which philosophy alone can and does demonstrate; it does not need to be confirmed by ordinary consciousness. But in so far as our non-philosophical thinking, on its part, needs an understandable account of the developed Notion of mind or spirit, it may be reminded that the Christian theology, too, conceives of God, that is, of Truth, as spirit and contemplates this, not as something quiescent, something abiding in empty identicalness but as something which necessarily enters into the process of distinguishing itself from itself, of positing its Other, and which comes to itself only through this Other, and by positively overcoming it--not by abandoning it. Theology, as we know, expresses this process in picture-thinking by saying that God the Father (this simple universal or being-within-self), putting aside his solitariness creates Nature (the being that is external to itself, outside of itself), begets a Son (his other 'I'), but in the power of his love beholds in this Other himself, recognizes his likeness therein and in it returns to unity with himself; but this unity is no longer abstract and immediate, but a concrete unity mediated by the moment of difference; it is the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son, reaching its perfect actuality and truth in the community of Christians; and it is as this that God must be known if he is to be grasped in his absolute truth, as the actual Idea in and for itself, and not merely in the form of the pure Notion, of abstract being-within-self, or in the equally untrue form of a detached actuality not corresponding to the universality of his Notion, but the full agreement of his Notion and his actuality." If you want to critique Hegel, fine, there is plenty in Hegel to critique, but at least read Hegel instead of relying on James Lindsay's hysterical pablum.
Do you have any easily digestible resources to get a grasp of what Hegel taught? I don’t particularly want to delve into a book of jargon and a lot of videos I see online are very surface level wishy washy. Cheers
@@thepouchka Unfortunately, no. His philosophy is not very amenable to summary. The only way to really get a grasp of what Hegel thought is to read Hegel. Along with a reasonably comprehensive understanding of history and philosophy. Basically, you've got to be in it for the love of the game. However, if you're just looking for a few convenient talking points to shut down people who, like the author of this video, namedrop Hegel dismissively to show what a smartypants they are, just ask them to explain Hegel's critique of Kant's moral philosophy, or whether Hegel believed Spinoza was an atheist, pantheist, or acosmist. You won't need to know the answers, you can just watch them sputter.
@@freejazzravethrash8849 Yeah that’s what I suspected, not sure how much I could commit to learning about a self referencing esoteric field like Hegel but maybe one day. So do you disagree with everything in this video or just the point which you commented on?
@@thepouchka Everything thing in this video is wrong. The assertion that Hegel considered himself to be God is probably the most fucking retarded thing I've ever heard in my life. The only way to achieve that reading of Hegel is to have never read Hegel at all. Likewise, the only real danger in his system of philosophy is that people like the author of this video use its inscrutability to intimidate impatient, insecure people; conversely, the only real benefit of mastering it is being able to criticize pseudo-intellectuals who dismiss Hegel out of hand. I wouldn't call him esoteric, though. Just burdensome and time consuming.
This video makes me think of “Star Trek, a cashless “advanced” society where everything works somehow with no real explanation other than “we evolved”.
i love this talk. i recently joined this channel. the special and satisfying features of the talks of this channel are the emphasis on the big picture, universality, and essence. so EDUCATIVE. i love it
The Pythagorian Theorem is used everyday all around you, but you'd only know that if you actually produced any tangible goods. But I guess bridges and homes that don't collapse on themselves aren't important. Who really needs trigonometry in their lives?
That was the moment TIK lost the engineering and science background viewers. Kinda odd he chose to mock the pythagorean theorem which is perfectly based on reality vs the other mystic oddities from the Pythagoreans.
@@21nickik you'd be really surprised by how many people actually use trigonometry in their daily lives. Home builders, mechanical engineers, architects, civil engineers, machinists, etc. It's used at some level in just about everything around you. The same goes for geometry in general
Heraclitus: there are two worlds Brocrates: wdym? Heraclitus: this world we are in is fake, but there is another that is real Brocates: woah, how do you know this one’s fake and that one’s real? Heraclitus: bc you cant see, touch, feel, or interact with this other world, or really define it at all. Brocates: So… it’s not real? Heraclitus: wdym?
Something I realized at the 40 minute mark where Marx is saying his dialectic materialism is the opposite of Hegel's, and as you pointed out Marx has issues with truthfulness. James Lindsey fell into the trap in one of his videos of saying Marx took Hegel's idea and turned the pyramid upside down. This reminded me of a critique of Marx in Pages of Socialist History by Tcherkesoff where he stated that Marx was a plagiarist who word for word stole the ideas of others, claimed they originated with him, and would then criticize the person he stole the ideas from saying they had everything backwards.
The Trinitarian God of Christianity can know himself as he is three persons in perfect communion and the creation of man was an act of loving creation, not because God lacked a looking-glass. If only these guys had spent a bit more time in Sunday school, all this could have been avoided.
As a Christian, it's obvious to me that Hegel started put with a flawed notion of who God is. "The eye I see God through is the eye God sees me through" well thats just objectively, God is clearly apart from man. Any basic reading of...any holy book will make that obvious!
Well, you are wrong. The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed. God gives you a freedom to see Him as ever you want. And God is distinctly NOT apart of man (Son of Man) .
Idealism was actually one of the two main pillars of ancient philosophy, the other being Materialism with its main representatives Democritus and Epicurus who didn't believe in any transcended reality . Karl Marx thought of himself as a materialist philosopher and his university thesis had the title : "The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature".
Well I guess he fell into a hole from the other side > happens when you determine you know everything > you become rigid and kill off your own growth and block the path
@@CariMachet Please read Socialism, Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels. Marx never determined he knew everything; he simply gave an analysis on capitol and the way the world works through different modes of production. Ideobabble is not a method to confuse people into believing them, that would never work. Ideobabble is a result of people not understanding the lingo associated with the theory which they assume you've already read before reading what they're writing. The quote by Marx used at the beginning to introduce the idea of Ideobabble was one removed from context of hundreds of pages.
@@CariMachet Are you implying Marx was a utopian who thought he knew everything? That is easily disproven by reading any of his work, his opinions on things were constantly changing and he believed in dialectical materialism, not utopianism.
Going through this again. It is the gift that keeps on giving. Great presentation. Thank you for the reference to Piekoff. Treasure trove of the finest kind. Objectivism is a solid base to work off of.
I would agree they are similar, but the difference is James Linsday seems to like to use his own form of Ideobabble. His train of thought isn't Ideobabble, so I wouldn't put him in with the Hegel's of the world, but man, listening to his word salad is REALLY tough, whereas, Tik talks much more plainly and can be understood without making your head swim with a bunch of words you need to have created a dictionary for.
Yeah, TIK to me is like cliff notes James Lindsay on this topic, LOL. And I do mean that as the highest compliment to TIK and Lindsay. James talks like someone who lives in the world of academia, and TIK is more like the working man's summary. I enjoy both based on mood. Both doing God's good work. 👍👍
Hegel's entire philosophy starts from the recognition that there are things about which logic and experience cannot provide definitive answers. Limits for human logical and empirical knowledge. The Kantian 'noumenon', so to speak. Obviously one approach is to say 'well then, let us not discuss these things any further, let us stick to the tanks', which is of course a possible outcome and the current domain of Science But on the other hand, it is hard to see why self-impose such limits, and why the human mind cannot use other instruments of investigation, or at least make an attempt. As for contradiction, contradiction is not seen as a 'good' thing, but as something that exists in our experiencing the world, in our "being and thinking the world". 'Reality' (and/or our experience of reality) is not always logical and non-contradictory. Hegel's philosophy is an attempt to deal with the contradiction and with the noumenon (which can be seen as two faces of the same coin). Hegel does not reject contradiction as a mere error of the intellect, but assumes that it can be something structural, a possibility in the ontology of things. His dialectic is an attempt to deal with contradiction, to study it and eventually use it to "say something true about the noumenon". I agree that Hegel lends itself to being trivialised and 'exploited' to reach aberrant conclusions, but Hegel's original intent is not to establish an irrationalist mysticism just for the sake of it, but rather to try to find a means of investigating issues and answering questions for which - by definition - logic and experience can say nothing
"Hegel's entire philosophy starts from the recognition that there are things about which logic and experience cannot provide definitive answers." Well, that's where he's wrong. - "Limits for human logical and empirical knowledge. The Kantian 'noumenon', so to speak." Yes, empirical knowledge alone isn't sufficient. We must use an Objective epistemology, not empirical. - " 'Reality' (and/or our experience of reality) is not always logical and non-contradictory." Of course it is. Reality does not contradict itself. There may APPEAR to be contradictions, and man might error and make contradictions, but man making an error is not a contradiction in and of itself, nor is an appearance of a contradiction a contradiction. If you have a contradiction, that means that you (or someone else) has got something wrong, or there's a clue about reality that you've not yet understood. - "His dialectic is an attempt to deal with contradiction" Exactly. This is the problem. By embracing contradictions, Hegel has rejected reality. He has assumed reality is not real, because it "contradicts" itself, even though it doesn't. This is where he's gone wrong. - "but Hegel's original intent is not to establish an irrationalist mysticism just for the sake of it" Perhaps that wasn't his original intent, but that's certainly how it ended up being. Once you reject reality, you will end up in mysticism. - "but rather to try to find a means of investigating issues and answering questions for which - by definition - logic and experience can say nothing" As explained in my recent video "But how do you know you're right" ( ruclips.net/video/chgZcPzfbeI/видео.html ), there is a method that can help you perceive reality that doesn't rely on just logic and experience. This method rejects empiricism and mysticism, because it is Objective. Therefore, these issues and questions you have are not "by definition" impossible like you said they were.
@@TheImperatorKnight Well, that's a way to approach the issue. But to claim that Reality, in all its ontological complexity, in all its possible epistemological interpretations, in all its infinite interactions, to the extremes, as a whole, is always and inherently non-contradictory... and everything that doesn't, is a mere illusion/appearance/error.. well its quite a bold claim. For example, if human thoughts ontologically exist as real phenomena/events and if human thoughts can be qualified as contradictory.. then real phenomena/events qualifiable as contradictory must be said to ontologically exist?
"When we consider where we should look for a philosophy most resembling the Hegelian dialectic, an answer that springs to mind is Taoism. The famous unity of yin and yang which one finds from the most ancient to the most modern Chinese philosophies, the mystical and mysteriously contradictory phrases of the Tao-te Ching by Laozi, and the self-inverting lines of thought one finds in the Zhuangzi are telling enough, but we also find the explicit position of the co-determination of opposites, that without the other there could not be the one. While to the common view it is Taoism that may strongly come to mind, the dialectical aspects of it are really found across various schools of Chinese philosophy." - Antonio Wolf, "The Tao of Dialectic," _Epoché_ 60 (March 2023). Do you think that Taoism has contributed to the Chinese's acceptance and support of socialism?
That is a reasonable intellectual inquiry and merits plenty of thought. If you look at it as the book of the way, essentially just the tao with none of the later cling on philosophers and the religious ideas then you would clearly see a book about the ruling of a nation or the governance of people and by extension wisdom for the governance of the self. Within that original text it clearly expresses what could be considered an anti communist position and it also denounces religiosity and superstition. It is of course greatly disappointing and ironic that later thinkers would try to use the text as the foundation of a popular religion full of all manner of superstition and then the same society so greatly shaped by the writing would utterly go off the rails even becoming communist down the road and in so very many ways utterly and outright behaving in the exact opposite way to what is described in the text which could be considered the sole most important philosophical treasure which emerged from the cultures, arts and thought of that region. All I am saying by all of this, is that you may have a interesting theory, but whatever you find, please be kind to Laozi and the Tao, because everything that came after was essentially the work of people who were clearly just too dumb to understand anything he had written. The comparison to hegel by way of how Laozi implies that the nature of the tao is not the toa that can be told is really trying to express the nature of the journey which one's lived experience will take them through and the every shifting perspective it will give them. People try too hard to make it spiritual and new age, when in reality it is quite pragmatic.
Chinese never accepted it, it was forced up them through conquest and mao hated religion and tried to remove it. And if you look at Taiwan, south Korea and Japan they don't really seem any more socialist than European countries.
4:43 It doesn't make sense to you because you haven't read the book, and have skipped to a random point in it devoid of any context that had been laid out.
Well, it is not the dark age. It is simply fading of Western civilization, because it was eaten inside by those who we are not allowed to mention, but are closely related to current president of Ukraine 😁
There's another term, for what you've used 'ideobabble' to point to, 'word salad'. Often, seemingly, used for the same reasons you reckon 'ideobabble' is used.
I'm currently evaluating the differences between Thunderclap Newman's "life is just a game, you fly your paper plane, there is no end" weltanschauung vs Procol Harum's "Life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" I'll let you know who wins after a few more beers...
We;ve been trying to get high without having to pay. -Marianne Faithfull Everybody knows this is nowhere. -Neil Young ------ Reason becomes involved in darkness and contradictions.... [Kant, CPR] Oh, my mind is messed up, going ‘round and ‘round. [Jimi Hendrix] D’oh! [Homer Simpson]
Love this video, but... Can I just complain for no good reason like a typical RUclips commenter should? Why is it in 50 FPS? Like, why not 30 or 60? PC monitors and modern TVs are typically display 60 FPS even in PAL regions nowadays, so why would you record a video in 50? It's very distracting because every 6th frame is dropped unless you enable VRR, which my office PC doesn't have.
It took me a while to go through it, but it's great. There's also a book where someone collated everything Peikoff said in that series. I believe it's called "Founders of Western Philosophy: Thales to Hume"
@@TheImperatorKnighthe also has a part 2 that's not available for free online. It covers everything from Kant to the Analysts and Existentialists. Someone like you though through it would spread great awareness.
@@dostoyevsky1222 Please be civilized and explain why . Don't be like Father Stalin or Father Hitler . When talking to a being that has the potential to reason always explain why you should or why you should not . 😊😊😊
9:44 sounds exactly like what many parents with Narcissistic or Borderline personality disorder do, they ignore the needs of the child and instead try to create a mini-me in order to see themselves, then punish the child harshly for not living up to whatever standards the parent set depending on their mood. I think I have a pretty good guess on where Hegel's low self esteem and need to overcompensate comes from... :|
Very interesting, thought provoking essay. It made me realise 2 things: - you are an atheist of a particular kind - an anti-Christian (hence why you've chosen Christians - not Jews, not Muslims, not Hindus - to emphasise the play of the "faith card) - you don't actually know the difference between philosophy of science (headed by J. Popper) and actual science, particularly physics of the very large and physics of the very small (quantum mechanics) with all its implications about reality (the "objective reality" you cling to as the ultimate label) This is good, though. It is again evidence that even rational people who in key fields strive for objective, truthful analysis sometimes fall prey to the superficiality of summaries (not quite Dunning-Kruger, but close). I like being challenged, and TYKHistory is doing excellent work in challenging people (and exposing the frailties of the axis marxism-socialism-communism-fascism-actualism).
Im getting the feeling that they are either intentionally or unintentionally describing how god "intervenes" Basically its to do with the "Theory" of quantum mechanics and schrodingers cat. That multiple outcomes are possible at the same time but the "agent" working in a blackbox chooses or favours a outcome and so.. So by this logic god is still in keeping with human freedom (Gods goal) but he selects the best outcome of human freedom. Obviously hegel is 100 years before quantum mechanics but this is what it seems to be to me. Or a similar idea.
As a Catholic, Hegel's whole "man is the mirror of God" and "God isn't complete" schtick is very much heretical in my opinion, along with all the gnostic stuff. Thank you for this very informative video
Well there is a reason the Church has suppressed Gnostics for millennia. It is the antithesis of Christianity. They think we can overcome our sin through ourselves alone, become God on earth and create a utopia, where as Christians believe it is through Christ's sacrifice alone that we can enter utopia when we die.
Forget all the "horns and tail fire & brimstone" views we have of the Devil, the real evil was when Lucifer convinced these philosophic individuals that he was enlightening them by turning them away from the Lord (Gnostics, etc) This is my view, at-least
(42:32-42:42) "If God can do anything, can he not-exist?" I think your reasoning is flawed. If something doesn't exist, it can't do anything because it doesn't exist. Because non-existance is not something you can do. So, existance can't do himself out of existance. That's the contradiction. The only thing non-existant, is not being. God cannot be non-being, because he is the principle of all being(s).
As a Christian (I hate using that sentence starter, but it's relevant) who came to the faith through scientific and historical evidence for it, there are few things as frustrating as hearing/seeing people say that they have to throw away reason to justify their faith. And these are the people who end up representing us. Granted, a lot of Christians think this way, that there's not good evidence to prove their faith, so they simply "don't worry about it." Utter nonsense. Though calling what you refer to in this video "Christianity" is... lackluster to say the least.
How could I forget! People are currently asking me to make response videos to Marxist RUclipsrs who are calling me all sorts of names, but honestly their arguments suck and I just don't see the point. They're not honest, they're not listening, and they're talking complete Hegel.
@TheImperatorKnight Why bother responding to those losers?Unless it will help grow your channel and make you money all you're doing is punishing yourself.
@junfour not quite. The idea is that reality is never to either extreme, but instead a synthesis of abstract ideals. So basically the synthesis between the thesis that he is always right and that he is always wrong is that his ideas are correct to some degree in that logic, to dumb it down a lot. The thing is, that what we are dealing here is metaphysiscs, which is really shaky subject matter, since we are basically competing for best guesses. Which is why it is so infuriating, as a philosopher, to watch people who have no clue about the field just taking things out of context and being like "i don't understand this at first glance, so it must be wrong".
17:05 Pythagoras' theorem You make fun of Pythagoras' theorem as impractical but I used it to find the length of a piece of pipe for a chimney flue that I couldn't measure because of inaccessiblity. It worked like a charm.
This question burns as hard as trying to figure out who is so vain that they probably thought the song was about them? Which is ironic, because the song is definitely about them. But about who?
12:12 - A slight typo here, I know you know that "Homo" means "man" and "Sapiens" means "wise". I bet making these videos can be stressful! And while I'm being a nitpicking jerk, "Böhme" isn't pronounced as "boomer" but more like "burr-meh" (in British, with a silent 'r'). This was a very informative video on Hegel. I also saw James Lindsey's video on the same subject but that was a bout 4hrs long; I appreciate your brevity very much.
@@Bonko78 My point was that TIK's videos are usually longer than Lindsey's. Half an hour for a New Discourses Bullet vs five hours on Hilter's Socialism.
“Ideobabble” is a good coinage. “Jargon” is technical language, which may serve a purpose of precise description in a special context but is ill-suited to a general audience. “Verbiage” would be a closer equivalent in this case. Thus, we could also call Hegel's writings "ideoverbiage". Anyway, I like "ideobabble" and think that it will catch on.
@@alexzhang3870better to be far right than far left. You guys are responsible for socialism, marxisim, nazism, and fascism. Were responsible for conservatism, reason and liberty.
@alexzhang3870 the British empire is not implicitly left or rightwing. Communism, fascism and nazisim are all inherently leftwing, and thus, the death toll of those three leftwing ideologies are on leftwing ideology.
@@Sam-lf3hn the emphasis is on colonization, which always is supported by ring wing parties. You can do some research about the debate between left and right on colonization in European countries after WWII, almost every right wing party supported continuous colonization and they uses argument like colonization benefitted the people being colonized( ignoring millions of them are intentionally starved to maximize profit for homeland companies).
I agree, but Nietzsche's followers are adamant that he had zero influence on Fascism or National Socialism, so they're likely to criticize us if they see these comments.
@@TheImperatorKnight tl;dr #notallfollowers , with a hashtag for intentional cringe(?) Because why not if it catches you off guard. Well shoot, I had a long comment I was typing, and then and it got all lost. Here's a shorter version at least. Well, I'm not sure I count as a follower, as I haven't read too deep into him yet. But I don't hate what he's said and I'm starting to appreciate and understand it. If that's close enough then..here we go. I should be surprised that those types of folks were influenced by him, and yet in retrospect I am not. I acknowledge it. I am the exception. If I have to criticize you it will be for good reasons and aimed to be constructive, just like my comments in the past, and the one just now that got lost (rip). I don't criticize others for not liking people I like, or thier (and/or my) ideas. I criticize when I think something is wrong with what is being said..or sometimes, when something being said is almost entirely right, but I've sniffed out something wrong with the underlying attitude of the person saying it. And....sigh, darn, my thought train steam ran out, nevermind, this is a complete thought, I'm sure aure it'll be easy to mock, it's absolutely disjointed, and I'm not likely to read a response ..so...have at it, whatever. I am still contemplating that video about truth you put out. I was avoiding your videos, but I'm wondering now what to think of your current perspective at this time. I'll still have a lot to look through though. And I am concerned about this philosophy rabbit hole you are going into. Know that I have gone down my own rabbit hole. Whatever you do, be open to being wrong, do not stick to dogma, not even philosophical dogma, if there is an idea you can't let go of, ask yourself why, and work it out. I think I'll be around. PS. Not sure what to make about RUclips restoring TIK back to the TheImperatorKnight again in the comment section, considering why you changed that in the first place.
The funny thing about Nietzsche is that the people who praise him the loudest are the ones who embody his ideas the least. Everyone wants to be an Ubermensch, but very few have the mindset necessary to become one.
Marx claimed that his theory was scientific, which he contrasted with "idealist" philosophers. He argued that the fall of Capitalism was inevitable because that was the way history would develop. Capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. So followers of Marx believe that the transition from capitalism to socialism will follow the transition from feudalism to capitalism as day follows night. That's why communism is like a religion and the Revolution is like the Final Day of Judgement. And that's why Marxist-Leninists like to use the term "late Capitalism" because they really believe the end is nigh.
When do you think Modernism began? Do you think the English and French Revolutions (which happened before Hegel) were pre-modern events? How was Hegel a post-modernist before Modernism?
TIK makes a great point here about how we create words that describe the elements in our world. This fact is why referring to “proper” English is rubbish, all languages are evolving.
I'll grant you that there's linguistic change, but there's evolving, then there's devolving. For example, I wouldn't call the average inner city American English an "evolution". It's closer to the series of grunts and mumbled nonsense depicted in the movie Ideocracy.
The point that they have no concrete policies and their entire messaging is just vague "make things better" reminds me of recent video essay by MentisWave on praxis. It just goes from a different angle, but also concludes that socialists do it, because if they had to say something concrete and lay out their policies, it wouldn't be appealing and just obvious bad policies when scrutinized, hence they rely on the abstract and ideas, rather than practice towards them
Fundamentally, you are asking a person with a process ontology to give a description of an entity. You see, as soon as they answer your question, they have sided with a thesis against an antithesis, and their allegiance is to the synthesis. But once that synthesis becomes concrete by being named, it becomes another thesis with another antithesis, and so isn't a synthesis. Their belief isn't in any particular outcome of a dialectical process but to dialectical movement itself. Marx said philosophers used to try to understand the world but the point is to change it.
Elon Musk recently summed them up pretty well. Appearing to do good, while actually doing evil. They *claim* to be building some kind of utopia... which therefore "justifies" anything that they "need" to do, in order to bring about their "utopia".
This whole video really just boils down to "any complex terms that I don't understand is meaningless and deceptive so don't look into it at all! Be skeptical, but don't be skeptical of the things that I don't want you to be". Your whole video is basically making the case for Newspeak, and that we should never take complex philosophy seriously, because it's difficult to understand, and therefore evil. You're literally an Obscurantist, like just genuinely presenting information in the most abstruse way possible to stop any further inquiry.
You have no understanding of ontology, which explains your difficulty of understanding being vs becoming. You, as a modernist, explain that what exists is that it can be perceived by the senses. The likes of you would have believed that there's no way that radiowave particles could exist because it couldn't be perceived by the senses until acientific instruments later revealed that they do. So you limit your understanding of reality to that that can only be oerceived by the senses and by extension instruments. Yet, im sure you would argue that your ideas have a certain element of reality otherwise how would you even understand yourself as a being if your interpretation of yourself and everything else around you only occurs in the realm of ideas. You believe that the wisdom of these philosophers amounts to ideobabble yet you are coming to the conclusion through a sort of reasoning that is only occuring in your ideal mind rather than by observing some external to you. Even those, external things you observe are only interpreted and given meaning through your ideas. Your ideas being something abstract and not concrete whatsoever. Therefore, you being the ultimate judge of reality can only come to a judgement through reasoning of ideas then you can conclude that ideas is reality. There is no reality without ideas because there would be no one to observe it so who would say it exist if there is no one to idealize reality? So yes Giovanni Gentile is right and many other philosophers are right and you can safely say this without necesarily agreeing with the necesary political or ideaological conclusions that followed their conclusions.
17:13 I have actually used Pythagorus once on a building site. 3 4 5 and you have the corner of your building. I never thought I would see the day, but I have used it.
Whether you proclaim that you have identified all relevant aspects in your definition (be it with a willingness to add special rules devoid of structural understanding) or proclaim that there is no such thing as a definition that persists across time and place, it's all the same spectrum. And to propagate ideas, in history it is always cult tendencies that proved fruitful. So the question isn't so much what is a cult. The question is does it work for the current time and place. Kinda like how Austrian Economics and its succession in Monetarism is held together by being useful to some people and a LOT of eminence over empirical evidence.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
The strongest cults are the ones that are never perceived as cults.
FIRST!
🏳️⚧️ ✊🏾 and 🚺
Like libertarianism?
@@jrton1366have you ever heard of a oxymoron?
@@jrton1366100% brother. You see it.
I sense a great disturbance in the aether: as though millions of philosophasters cried out in terror, and then broke into a cacophony of circular arguments, personal insults, and a vigorous round of "no u."
TO SLOW TO THIS ONE TIK FIRST!
Funny! Perfect! Good one.😂
Haha, it reminds me of "whataboutthementhough" anytime the other halfs behavior is questioned in any way. 🙉🙈🙊
Yes, yes, indeed.
Whataboutism = how you deflect attention from the exact thing you are doing. But pretend is beneath you.
Trigonometry was actually my favorite part of mathematics as a kid, which is why I apologized to my old math teacher for forgetting most of it when I met him as an adult.
"Hegel thinks he has found God in the middle of the PUBG circle" is not a sentence I thought I would be hearing today, but here we are.
Suddenly a lot of the Church's repression of Gnostics and others makes sense.
Especially since the message of Christianity is and has always been that salvation is offered freely to all. No one can give you salvation, you have to accept it yourself. There's no enlightenment or mystic journey process, no hidden knowledge or esoteric rules. It's all laid out very clearly in the Gospels, have faith and love thy neighbor as thyself, and that is how you live a good life and afterlife.
There may be irony in it but the saying "What would Jesus Do?" might be the best answer to these cultists. And in the Bible Christ helped many, and selflessly healed the sick, preached love, and died on a cross for the sins of Humanity. But Jesus also drove out the money changers and rebuked those lacking in faith or righteousness. So I guess the message would be that like Jesus while our love of others should be unconditional, but our aid and protection should not, lest we become overly permissive. Jordan Peterson talked about something similar in needing both love and justice in our world but the exact words escape me now.
One (of the) thing about Jesus I've always found weird; What's the deal with the money changers? Was it them doing business in the temple that was the problem, or the fact that they were money changers?
@@SoMuchFacepalm I would say more that they were doing business in the temple since Jesus openly associated with tax collectors, who though reformed and penitent were of a similar ilk. And in addition you have the famous render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's line that more broadly means accepting the objective reality of the world while maintaining faith.
Rather than bringing their own sacrifices, worshippers had to change their Roman money into "temple" money that they then used to buy ritual animals for sacrifice. As the Pharisees (and perhaps the Sadducees) owned both the moneychangers and the ritual animals, you can imagine the kind of profit they were making. Jesus rarely had a good word against the Pharisees as he saw them as taking advantage of the people. Hence the driving off of the moneychangers, and their decision to kill him, inadvertently fulfilling the scripture.
@@EdiTheDon depending on your interpretation this could be used as an argument against monopolies as the Pharisees and Sadducees had complete control over access to ritual and sacrifice in the Temple and used this absolute control for their enrichment. Then Jesus drives out the money changers, symbolically showing how there should be no barriers to faith, for it is you yourself that stands before God, not your tribe, nation, or family, You and only You must answer if your heart has faith and you lived a righteous life.
@@EdiTheDon As I recall, it was even worse than that. I remember reading somewhere that even if you brought your own sacrifice (many people were herders at the time), the priest examining the sacrifice would find some form of blemish on it, making it unfit to sacrifice, then offer you a "temple certified" animal instead. This explains why Christ also drove out the ritual animals as well.
The French Post-Modernist philosophers have taken idiobabble to an extreme.
I have read Derrida and yes I had troubles but Deleuze, I have tried
Read the thoughts of the leaders of the French Revolution... even before it began... the jacobin clubs had lots of idiotbabble
They just plagiarized Monty Python's argument sketch.
Thanks for the video
I apologise for what passes as 'french thought', the majority of the 20th centuary to today is complete socialist idiocy and perversion, better to stick to the likes of decartes, montaigne, moliére.. far better..
"If they can get you to reject reason, they can get you to reject reality."
This is, no joke, the central theme to everything influential that Umberto Eco wrote, and is how he himself routinely redefines basic terms and even reality itself to suit his narratives.
There is no reality, only your perception of it. And reason ... it is severely limited. Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
@@aleksazunjic9672 Gödel's incompleteness theorems are really about how predicate logical systems are no stronger than Number Theory. And that those logical systems are either incomplete or inconsistent. Both cases can be useful. And both need to handled carefully.
@@aleksazunjic9672 There is no reality until Reality kicks you in the teeth. Then there's ideoobabble to explain it away.
@@jackee-is-silent2938 In broader sense, Gödel's incompleteness theorems are about limitations of logic and human (rational) mind. In other words, we are either incomplete or inconsistent , and could never prove our consistency on our own. There would always be statements that are true but we cannot prove it.
@@DrCruel You need to have real teeth for that 🤪
As a Christian this is very interesting. The huge mistake Hegel made was the idea God was dependent on his own existence. This hubris is the downfall of so many.
Not a christian, but replace "god" with "the true, though unknown nature of the universe" and I agree.
@@tbk2010 Hegels unfocused mind is destructive to mans life. But he did a nice waltz thru history.
I don't think the vague descriptions of the Christian god is any better than the Hegel descriptions of his god...they both seem like unfounded claims not based in reality.
@@cristopherq1935 Thinking about claims w/o evidence disintegrates the mind. Look out at reality, not inward. Focus your mind.
@@cristopherq1935 No God!
As a Christian, I may be able give an answer to what traditional Christianity would say theologically to the idea that "God can do anything, so can also not exist,".
This is essentially similar to the question "God can do anything, so can't he create something bigger than Himself,". God in the Christian view is omnipotent, so He can do all things, yes. However, He cannot do a thing that is not a thing, this is a contradiction. If something is bigger than God, then that is a contradiction.
The example that is often used is "God cannot make a trianglesquare". He can make a square in a triangle or a triangle in a square. Or a third shape we call in our language triangle-square. But not a trianglesquare. As mentioned above, he can do anything, but that is not a thing. That is a contradiction.
The idea of God making himself not exist is similar. God, in the Christian view is by His nature the existent first mover of reality. The concept of God making Himself not, in the Christian view, a thing. It is a contradiction. Another massive reason this would be considered impossible is that God is thought to exist outside of time and space. Therefor, His nature does not change and is consistent. So essentially, if He exists at once, He exists for the rest of time.
Secondly, depending on what you are referring to with "don't say God's real name," there is also a reason for that as well. This comes from the book of Exodus where God gives his name as "YHWH". This translates to "I Am,". In Judaism (as well as to an extent early Christianity) this name was avoided because saying the name of God "I Am" could be interpreted as making the impious claim that one is God. According most interpretations of the New Testament, this is what gets Christ in trouble with the Pharisees. Other names of God however (Elohim, Adonai, etc) were generally considered acceptable to say aloud.
I hope I explained that somewhat well. Overall, love the content man, keep at it. Well wishes from the US.
I look at the existence of God through the lens of physics. If one looks at explanations of the universe through concepts like string theory, then our reality is basically a four-dimensional space (length, width, depth and time, perhaps) existing within a much larger reality of multiple dimensions. God is a multi-dimensional being who exists outside of our reality, and perhaps on a higher plane than all the dimensions that make up the multiverse. In other words, God exists outside of time, and indeed time has no meaning to God. God exists outside of physical reality, and is omnipotent because He can make changes to any and all dimensions. This also means God is omnipresent, because He can be present in any dimension at any time and place of His choosing, and influence it as He desires.
Also, being omnipotent and existing outside of time does present an issue for God, in that He can see ALL outcomes of decisions that are made by us humans. Every time we come to a point where we make a decision, there is a fork in the road. Every choice leads to other choices, creating a life path that is like a growing tree, or perhaps better described as a root system. We can only see what is in front of us, but God sees the entire root system. On top of that, He can see how our individual root system of potential choices interacts with all the others that we make contact with throughout our lives. This is why God does not usually interfere with our lives or with history, because He knows how one small change can ripple throughout the system. It also takes away one of the greatest gifts God has given us, freedom of choice. If we are to receive the gift of eternal life, we need to show we are deserving of it through how we interact with others.
After all, if one is a paranoid murdering psychopath, would one ever find happiness in a kingdom where kindness and mercy are the order of the day? And wouldn't those stains on the soul become the sources of the fire that destroys the soul in the light of God Himself?
Certainly, to a Christian the "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it" would be more a word game than a real question, God is all powerful, so anything he creates is lesser than him.
The people who do think that God just keeps going up and up are Mormons, who believe in an infinite number of gods, YHWH being just one, the lowest.
God is not bound by the logic. Remember, God allowed himself to be killed, although he is immortal and omnipotent .
@@aleksazunjic9672 God did not die in His divine nature, as that is impossible, being a contradiction. The man Jesus Christ died on the cross. However, since Jesus is the same Person as the second Person of the Trinity, whatever He does in His humanity can be attributed to His Deity, and what He does in His Deity can be attributed to His humanity. Thus, it becomes possible in this way for God to die for our sins.
@@bigscarysteve This is the human interpretation, in order to satisfy requirements of human logic. However, God is illogical, un-reasonable ... cannot be comprehended by mind (or law, as mentioned in scriptures). Thus, God did die on the cross. One and only God. No matter how paradoxical and absurd it sounds. This is the core of Hegel's unity of opposites. Two opposites come together, to create something entirely new. God did not die for our sins, He died to give us Life.
20:44
_Heraclitus said: "You can't step into the same river twice."_
No, he said: "You *can* step into the same river twice - and at the same time, you can not. This is even more radical because it shows how much this philosophy embraces contradiction.
But both those statements are true in a different sense? It is and is not the same river similar to how people change across time.
@conforzo Reality isn't contradictory, definitions are abstract for the sake of speed.
@horstnietzsche1923 It is the same river as it is the same you. Replacing a small part obscures the definition but remember the definition of river and you include time diffused states.
@conforzo No, it's a failure to understand the nature of language. Sad.
@conforzo I did already. Language is an abstraction for arbitrary precision. Same as math just harder to see. Definitions are fuzzy, that's why languages work, but why so many slightly above average iqs get stuck on the roadblock of literal points of words rather than the abstract communication at the heart of words. It's a misunderstanding of the base of learning ironically.
"Socialism is when there's no commodities, including food" might just be the best definition.
You mean _Communism_ not Socialism.
🤣It really is a death cult when taken to its logical conclusion
@@sdrc92126
Another confused person.
You are the confused one mate
Communism is a branch of Socialism, there is no real difference. Just as fascism and national Socialism are all branches of Socialism. The core is the same with semantic differences. The result is death, destruction, poverty and misery regardless of which branch you choose.
It's telling that many people in the comments have read or been told that "this means this" and as such they think TIK is wrong with the argument "you interpret it wrongly". But TIK's whole argument is that these kind of texts have been interpreted by people over time and lead to many different beliefs and many of them are really messed up and damaging to people and society. Point being if TIK interprets the meaning as shown in the video and others interpret the same meaning then what kind of argument is "i dont agree with you interpretation"? The bread crumbs are there, TIK is following them, your personal interpretation doesn't change anything about that...
When man regards his unfocused mind as a guide to thought, the result is contradiction and mysticism.
But Hegel went against basic Christian theology. God NEEDING humans for... well, anything, is blasphemy. Humans being righteous spirits trapped in human body is also deeply anti-Christian. In fact, we know that since as early as Apostles Christians were condemning gnostics (who held that belief).
So no, not every interpretation is correct or valid. If i say "i'm hungry" but you interpret that as me being sleepy - that's just incorrect interpretation, no matter how much mental gymnastics you perform to reach that conclusion.
Also, while you see the nod to "world of ideas" in John 1:1-5, it requires certain knowlegde of Early Christian missionary work, that focused on "seeds of truth" in worldviews of target audience to draw parallels between that worldview and Christianity (which would help non-Jewish audience that didn't know the Old Testament to understand concepts of the Gospel). Doesn't mean Christianity drew inspiration from there. Most likely early authors weren't even aware of those schools of thought when the core of the theology was formed, they just later tried to use whatever available to explain Christianity to people (Acts 17 is clearer example of that).
So just because you can interpret so.ething incorrectly, doesn't mean people shouldn't point out obvious issues. Hegel would be excommunicated from the most Churches today for his blasphemous gnostic views. So taking them as one legitimate interpretation of Christian Scripture is simply wrong.
@@Kvint-kh12345 The unfocused mind contains neither truth nor falsehood, but only the arbitrary.
I bought a book about Hegel once. After 10 pages I got a headache because of the complexity of the language and lack of actual content in the sentences. I have been having similar discoveries around the ideological types. I've found the best way is to just ask questions. Usually they get agressive when you dont understand their obvious gibberish.
Word salad
Maybe you should ask someone who understands? Did you ever thought about that?
@@Jenseduca What part of "I've found that the best way is to just ask questions" did you fail to comprehend?
@sortebill The part is where the importance of who you ask your questions is completely absent. I can't comprehend why. It doesn't help if you ask fools, like this guy who made this video, they kust gonna confuse you even more.
@@Jenseduca I wont ask you any more questions then. Thanks for the advice not to listen to you.
One of my favorite insults of Hegel comes from Schopenhauer, who called him a "windbag". Good ol 19th century beef.
He also referred to him as a "A flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan" which might be the greatest and most accurate insult in history
I don't think TIK would have much good to sqy about schoppy either. Considering that he is philosophically illiterate.
@@dreyri2736
You sound like a butt hurt cultish self victim,you poor thing.
Schopenhauer was also angered by the fact that Hegel's courses were often swelling with student's while very few bothered to attend his.
Once Schopenhauer performed an experiment whereby he schedueled his lecture to take place at the exact time as Hegel's and was outraged to find that only 5 came to his while over 200 were cramming in other university room just to hear the discourse of the former.
It would be even easier to make a stupid video about how Schopenhauer is responsible for nazism than Hegel but let's not give this guy too many ideas...
00:04 🧠 Ideologues often evade providing clear definitions or answers, resorting to vague, abstract concepts, making meaningful discourse challenging.
02:55 🤯 Ideobabble, characterized by complex, unintelligible language, serves to exclude those outside the ideological circle, perpetuating confusion.
06:12 💡 Ideologues prioritize abstract ideas over concrete reality, communicating in nebulous terms to assert superiority and justify entitlement.
07:59 📜 Hegel's philosophy, influencing Marxism, Fascism, and National Socialism, centers on the idea of humanity as a mirror reflecting God, seeking self-completion.
16:14 ❄ Early philosophers like Thales and Pythagoras, influenced by mystic beliefs, laid groundwork for ideologies merging religion and philosophy.
19:56 🔀 Heraclitus' emphasis on change and contradiction profoundly impacted philosophy, despite some notions being logically flawed.
22:11 💡 Hegel's concept of "Aufheben" influenced Marx's Historical Materialism, emphasizing change.
23:02 🔄 Fascist and Marxist ideologies derive their emphasis on change and struggle from Heraclitus's philosophy.
24:54 🌍 Movements like Marxism and Fascism prioritize change and abstract concepts over concrete policies.
26:43 🤔 Heraclitus's philosophy challenges the concept of reality, proposing two realms: Appearance and Reality.
28:33 🕵♂ Cults manipulate followers by undermining self-esteem and promoting blind faith over reason.
30:56 🧠 Plato's World of Forms suggests a reality beyond the material realm, influencing subsequent philosophical thought.
34:37 🎩 Hegel's dialectic aims to reconcile contradictions, leading to the transcendence of material reality.
38:20 🔄 Hegel's dialectic mirrors the Christian Trinity, emphasizing a process of synthesis towards higher understanding.
39:42 🌌 Dialectical Materialism seeks to transcend material reality through the reconciliation of contradictions.
42:55 🕊 Hegel's approach to God avoids defining Him directly to avoid self-refutation within his dialectic.
45:35 💭 Hegel aims to destroy his conscious mind to approach unconsciousness, believing it brings him closer to God, echoing a desire for unthinking obedience seen in cults like National Socialism.
46:57 🧠 Coercive persuasion in cults leads to dependency on the group, eroding critical thinking and reality perception, fostering unthinking obedience.
48:22 🚶♂ Marching in movements like National Socialism served to divert thoughts, kill individuality, and foster a sense of community through mechanical, ritualistic activities.
49:43 🌟 Destructive cult leaders often possess messianic visions, seeking to change the world for their own purposes, echoing traits seen in Marxists, according to Ross from "Cults Inside Out."
50:39 🎩 Hegel's pursuit of Absolute Knowledge parallels cult leadership, with followers like Marx, Gentile, and Hitler adopting similar tactics.
51:31 🌐 Ideologues avoid defining terms like socialism to maintain a magical abstraction, preventing concrete definitions that could undermine their ideologies.
52:52 🔄 Ideologues resist defining concepts to preserve their magical abstracts, aligning with dialectical materialism's rejection of materialism and preference for abstraction.
53:46 ⚠ Ideobabble perpetuated by ideologues seeks to manipulate minds, leading followers to delusion and mental instability, urging viewers to ground themselves in objective reality.
These AIs are getting too smart...
@@dameanvil Sup.
36:41 👩🏼 Because yo mama
" *Heraclitus' emphasis on change and contradiction profoundly impacted philosophy, despite some notions being logically flawed.* "
They were not flawed. When Schliemann have found Troy, it was in ruins. Was it "the same" Troy as that of Iliad? No, it was different, yet still the same.
TiK claims that it's a false contradiction, because it's the same city. Well, it was just a mound of dirt by then, so not even a city. How can something be considered to be "the same city", when it's not even a city anymore?
The contradiction is real, if a statement can *only* be either true or false, with no in-betweens. That's not true, though. We've known that truth can be a function with possible values from 0 to 1 only for a relatively short time. TiK still doesn't seem to understand it.
@@bakters Man, this is just the ship of Theseus. There's no contradiction. Just because something isn't currently identical to a past version doesn't mean we can't tell if it's related in any way, like being the same thing at a different point in time, for example. There is a continuum that we call, 'the ship' that covers the entirety of it's existence. Sure the boundaries can be subjective and arbitrary, but so is the category we made for it. The category can have arbitrary and subjectively chosen boundaries that are nonetheless objective, based in objective reality. Therefore, yes, Troy IS the same city. Just as it was the same residential area when it became a city as it was when it was a town. It's crossing from one arbitrarily defined state to another doesn't result in it's replacement with something else. The old stuff is still there, unchanged, while new stuff has been added, changing the whole. No contradiction, just terminology that doesn't describe something in it's entirety, because describing something by, for example, listing the location and type of every atom in it's structure is unnecessarily complicated.(for most of us, anyway)
Hahaaa!!! I'm dying here!! Your response to the youtube critic, or whatever they are, is absolutely legendary. I wasn't ready for it and you caught me off guard. Was in the middle of drinking a Mello Yello that ultimately ended up on me and the floor. As far as I'm concerned you are now a legend! Just awesome. Also, I am enjoying your videos very much. Just full of good stuff. Appreciate your time and effort.👍🏼
Also guys, you can use ideobabble style of writing to get alot of marks in your english exams.
A lot are 2 separate words.
@@rudolphguarnacci197 It's the internet and I wasnt the one who aced the english exams using the ideobabble style.
You still sound like 'anidiot' because of that
It still needs to make sense, the examiners can smell bs
Thia comment was written by a frustrated 8th grader
Ideobabble is the word we didn't know we needed.
Ideobabble is unlimited growth on finite planet. goobers
@@NoPrivateProperty Found one of the loser brigade who's probably subscribed so he can frantically downvote the video and launch strawmen to damage control.
@@NoPrivatePropertyFound the Hegelian
@@hafizihilmibinabdulhalim1004
Bro your pfp is Hegelian as well 💀
@@NoPrivateProperty Okay Böhme
Hegel said "ok Böhme" unironically.
Native German speaker here, the pronunciation isn't even close to "boomer" but English doesn't have an "ö" sound so I'm not complaining about the lack of accurary - just that this makes it not really funny since it's based on a mispronunciation. (in case you're interested, google translate auto detects Böhme as a German word and gives you an accurate German pronunciation.
Just for fun: It also gives you stereotypical accents when you let the voice from one language pronounce words from others. French voice pronouncing the word "hilarious" is indeed hilarious btw xD)
@@thulyblu5486still funny
@@thulyblu5486 For people who don't speak German the joke is funny, taking it too seriously isn't
@@thulyblu5486 i as a swede grew up with the sounds of Å Ä Ö and one day I thought "how do i explain the pronounciation to an english speaker" and I remember actually succeeding with it I.E finding words where the sound was present, I cant actually remember what the words were but I do remember finding atleast 1 word where one or two of the letters in it made the same sound as Å Ä or Ö for each of those letters
@@goranpersson7726 Urgent has the ö sound in place of the u.
Schopenhauer famously described Hegel's work as "a pseudo-philosophy that cripples all mental powers, suffocates real thinking and substitutes by means of the most outrageous use of language the hollowest, the most devoid of sense, the most thoughtless, and, as the outcome confirms, the most stupefying jumble of words”.
Actually Pythagoras is used every day. If you are an electrician you use it to calculate the waveform of current although you only do it manually at school and a machine does the job otherwise it wouldn’t be possible if he hadn’t discovered the formula.
Pythagoras asserted that the world is number. On that which can be expressed in numerical terms is true.
The Babylonians and Egyptians already used the Pythagorean theorem before he existed, Pythagoras likely only formalized it (if that).
You missed the sarcasm.
When Econ professor Bryan Caplan was promoting his book "The Case Against Education" he would make the comment about never using Pythagoras' Theorem but learning it was still useful. And that is true for Liberal Arts/social science majors but in the trades it is used daily. Even if just by the 3-4-5 rule to square a corner.
@@sr_leonardi "Babylonians and Egyptians already used the Pythagorean theorem before he existed" - okay, where's your citation?
Statement Analysis says that the people do that (never clearly define things) as "hedging their bets", allowing them to say later on that you "miss understood them" and then change their meaning. Rinse and repeat.
So, plausible deniability?
@@SoMuchFacepalm Plausible deniability is putting on the appearance you don't know something so you don't have to stop it; this is closer to a motte-and-bailey argument.
@@boobah5643 Eh, I'd call it false equivocation. Plausible deniability is just the benefit you get out of it. Of course, you also get plausible deniability from the motte-and-bailey, playing dumb, Tu Quo Que (in some circumstances) so it's really the same thing in the end. They're lying, and we know that they are lying consciously, because of the effort they go to to cover it up.
Exactly. Hagel's dialectic functions as an underhanded means of fortifying a conjecture against valid criticisms, by making the claim purposefully vague and fluid in its meaning. In contrast, when a conjecture is made in good faith, it will be constructed as simply as possible, devoid of ambiguous language and will often be supported by a set of foundational premises; thereby demonstrating a degree of confidence, since the scholar has deliberately chosen to make the refutation process less difficult for detractors of the claim.
Generally, the simpler the explanation and closer it is to the common tongue, the more true it is, especially in academic circles 😂
Plato's demiurge is not the ancestor of God in the Christian teaching. In fact the idea of a demiurge is a heresy that has surfaced time and time again, eg Catharism.
It's an idea that resurfaced during the 1960s and has been growing in influence ever since.
Basically Gnosticism
@@thadtheman3751Exactly! ❤
Cope more christian. Your teachings are a lie
Christianity is a lie. Embrace gnosticism
There seems to be broadly two types of people, one hears ideobabble and thinks "this makes no sense, that guy is an idiot" while the other thinks "this makes no sense, that guy is a genius."
You know, for a long time in my early life, I would hear of it, and then think "this isn't making sense to me, I feel like an idiot", sometimes I followed up by actually saying "This isn't making sense to me, please help me understand and not be an idiot."
Interestingly, the results I'd get from trying to ask this varied greatly, but patterns have emerged.
The dismissive responses can be really indicative.
This comment was brought to you by the contrarian association of definitely not contrarianism
(My apologies. I really am feeling oppositional today, it's a little bit of an ahole thing, but it's not aholeness for aholeness' sake if you know what I mean.)
@@chillinchum
The problem for the Marxist is that many don't even read Marx, so you ask them questions and they will say "educate yourself" or "my job isn't to educate you".
Bravo! :)
People saying "this make no sense" are simply sheep in the pen. They live in their small world, one day they will die and that is about it. People who try to understand ... well, they at least have a chance. No matter how small.
@@aleksazunjic9672 There is no trying to understand the incoherent babblings of a charlatan.
TIK's videos should be shown in schools and academia. As someone who lived in a Socialist country with a single party (called the Communist Party) behind the Iron Curtain, his videos struck a cord.
It's really sad how people are still living through the horrors of socialism in present day, and all these academic numbskulls in western countries are trying to bring it here. We should be well past the point where we toss socialism in the proverbial dumpster of terrible ideas we never try again. At this point it's as stupid as triangle shaped wheels.
In which socialist/communist country do you live?
@@robertvolz4200: I left long time ago, and as you know the Eastern Block fell apart in 1989-1990. It was the RSR (Socialist Republic of Romania).
@@bkucinschi ah ok I misread. Instead of lived, I read live. Thanks 😊
@@bkucinschi bb--b-b-bbb-but it wasn't r-r-rreal socialism!!
Dear TIK just wanted to recommend you a certain book for future. It's name is "Conversations with an Executioner" by Kazimierz Mocarski. The autor was high ranked officer of Polish resistance AK and after the war he was imprisoned by the newly established communist regime as potentially dangerous. He was hold in one cell with Nazi war criminal Jürgen Stroop himself by months. Durning this time Moczarski heard a lot of stories from Jürgen about his Weltanschaltung starting his service durning WWI, first steps in the SS and pacification of Warsaw ghetto uprising. This book is absolutely must read for everyone who wants to know more about Nazi ideology and how it was applied in real life.
Apart from that I finished Stalingrad recently and I deeply amazed by your work. I wonder if would you analyse how accurate is German war film Stalingrad from 1993 like you done with Come and see.
I think no one is as overqualified to do such video as you.
Greetings from Poland
Oh yeah I'll get that and put on my bookshelf with the other ones
An Angel at the Fence by Herman Rosenblat
Surviving with Wolves by Misha Defonseca
Binjamin Wilkomirski's Fragments
The Fifth Diamond, by Irene Zisblatt
The Painted Bird by jerzy kosinski
To this day, Hegel's greatest enemy is considered to be his contemporary Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Hegelianism (= ideobabble) is a polemical term coined by the famous philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer for incomprehensible, mystifying language that is intended to create the impression of intellectual depth, complexity and importance, but is in fact largely devoid of content, thus enabling only minimal, if any, gain in knowledge and often even leading to intellectual and conceptual confusion. In Schopenhauer's view, the philosophy of Hegel and his successors, the so-called Hegelians, is characterized by precisely these qualities. Schopenhauer also referred to it as "philosophasterei" or charlatanry".
A close mirror of my thoughts on Hegel.
Schopenhauer was the original based troll.
That's because everyone liked hegel and went to his lectures because he was cool whereas schopenhaur was just a loner who hated women.
And he used the Hindu canon of Upanishads and their commentary to deal him death blows
@@BlankBey0ndyes yes of course. But women definitely didn’t hate him if you know what I mean 😉
Last year I read Roger Scruton's "Fools, Firebrands & Frauds: Thinkers of the New Left" and it covers Sartre, Badiou, Foucault, Zizek, Galbraith and a whole host of others whose ideas become indistinguishable from each other. Every single one of these 20th century Marxist "thinkers" thinks in gibberish. Badiou even claimed that language can be reduced to a mathematical formula where meaning only has meaning if it assigned a value. Scruton's opinion is that all of this ideological babble is designed to undermine what already exists and to unbalance people in order to move towards a vague, unnamed utopia.
I'll definetily give Sir Roger's book a look. He's a philosopher I deeply admire for speaking clearly. The only reason I'm watching this video in the first place is because I notice a cult-like devotion to Hegel from several people of the "intellectual" left
Very good book
"Badiou even claimed that language can be reduced to a mathematical formula where meaning only has meaning if it assigned a value."
This is exactly how it works and it is the precise opposite of post-modernism.
You're really not understanding Heraclitus. He is not saying everything isn't real, he's saying everything is in motion and our perception of the world is imperfect. He is not saying there is literally a second reality that's more real than the one we experience, he is saying that we have an imperfect understanding of the world around us, so we think and act in relation to this incomplete perception of the world, rather than in relation to the world as it really is- we can only come close to understanding the world as it really is through reason.
Of course, he's right about this, and it has no relation to orphic cults or 20th century cranks.
don't expect a 100 iq midwit to deal in good faith.
It’s not enough to these guys that you’re condemning those 20th century cranks. You still going for “reason” which to them is just more postmordern fuckery.
I said the same thing in my comment, I’m glad I’m not the only one who understands these philosophers. Unfortunately so many people who watched this are completely clueless.
He's not understanding Heraclitus nor Hegel. He hasn't read neither, only Marxist commentary about them. It's a disappointing and unnerving video
H thought a Logos transcended entityless, random motion.
I've come to the grim realization recently that the modern world consists of almost nothing but pure ideology. Most discourse functions on the basis of ideology, i.e. people hold a set of abstract propositions about how the world "ought" to be and then impose that view through various social channels (social media, news media, entertainment media, etc.) as a means to either gain social currency or to "conquer" ideological ground, while shunning and ostracizing those who do not conform. These ideologies also serve as a form of personal comfort and provide a sense of internal stability or grounding, at least on a superficial level.
The distinction I make between ideology and religion is something like: religion is about what you do (how you act in day to day life, the rituals, practices and traditions you engage in) and it can also be seen as the frame through which you see the world, whereas ideology is almost purely propositional in nature. This would mean that, although there can be ideological aspects to religion, that is far from its only quality. However, taking part in this ideological way of engaging with the world can, in itself, be seen as a new form of religion, if that makes sense. And it's a very tribal, unsophisticated form of religion that leans on things like grievance, envy and resentment as its motivating forces.
You can come up with as much intellectual jargon as you like, at the end of the day all you're doing is externalizing blame, engaging in petty power dynamics and doing it all with an unearned sense of virtuousness.
Hot damn, great post.
Actual not a great post, since ideological religions can go in all sorts of way. Post literally equivocated ideological religion with one type of ideological religion when there is an infinite amount of ideological religion that can possibly exist. In a sense every nation state that has a distinct culture can be defined as an ideological religion because that is how general the scope of the term covers.
@@henrytep8884 Like I said, the distinction I make between ideology and religion is that religion is the wider concept. Ideology is defined as a system of ideas and ideals, especially as it relates to economic and political theories and policies. In other words, ideologies themselves are mainly categorized by their propositional content, i.e. ideas that you have in your head that you believe to be true. Religion is defined (most broadly) as a system of faith or worship as well as interests and pursuits followed with great devotion. This means that religion has performative aspects. It's not just about the abstract ideas you hold in your head, it's about how you act in and see the world. So, to make it clear, you can have things like Christian ideology, but Christianity itself is not defined exclusively by its ideology.
The point I was making is that, in the modern world, ideology IS the performance. Almost anything anyone ever talks or cares about is how the world ought to be in terms of economics, forms of governance or cultural norms - and that, in itself, is the performative aspect of modern, secular religions. They forego the metaphysics, spirituality, rituals and tradition of classical religions in favor of these ideological power dynamics.
Interesting comment, but it applies exclusively to Leftist/Marxist ideology, which has brutally demonized our traditions and institutions. You can't honestly claim that conservatives are primarily ideological when in fact they are quite grounded in rational policies and seek concrete solutions to real problems.
That is why the Left approaches the problem of Donald Trump with hate, Fake News, propaganda, and a weaponized justice system, NEVER from a perspective of Trump's policies or what he actually says and does.
The border wall, for example, whether you're in favor or not, is part of a solution to mass illegal immigration, and has nothing to do with ideology. Same goes for the preservation of free speech on campuses, opposition to Big Tech online censorship, and the fight against transgenderism in public schools, etc. All conservative issues rooted in laws and policies, NOT ideology!
Welcome to life junior.
I remember my philosophy teacher telling us "this table isn't real but it's really real" made no sense back then, still doesn't
Your teacher had tenure.
Maybe he meant that table is a function and it’s actually wood or metal or whatever
@@off6848 I think it was that the ends of the table was to be a table while the ends of the wood could've been a plank or a support beam or something
@@off6848 Aristotle would call a function a final cause . And the wood,etc a material cause.
@@off6848 Aristotle had 4 types of causes, inc/material, final.
The biggest critic of Plato's Forms was...Plato. The concept only came up in a few of his dialogues and he even then wrote a dialogue where he dismantles his own theory. Just because Heraclitus says that quote about a river doesn't mean he wholeheartedly agrees. We just remember he asked the question and it was a good thought experiment on the idea that things change. The materials that made you up were somewhere before you, and they will be somewhere else later.
@@dostoyevsky1222tik doesn't seem to be the right person to discuss philosophy. He's just too literal. The early Greek philosophers, as you two point out, were generally critical of concepts and didn't necessarily follow it because they talked/wrote etc about it. On the other hand, more modern pseudo philosophers like Hegel have an objective goal where they subscribe to their ideobabble.
This video didn't seemed to get lost in the weeds some, the information meandered and didn't really come to a point. "Why does it matter who Hegel was?" Because he believed in a dialectic ever changing non-reality (as explained in this video) which informed the foundational "logic" of the first communist/socialist/fascist thinkers.
I'm pretty sure this video topic was inspired, again, by James Lindsay, who shares that literal understanding of the philosopher chain. Not that this invalidates their conclusions, they just aren't the best at describing the concepts.
@@dostoyevsky1222 James Lindsay expands on the influence of hegel on communism et al. It's just influence, not that he came up with the concepts first. This is why I said tik gets lost in this video, it never gets tied back in.
And yes, hegel was a pseudo philosopher, the same as every college freshman smoking weed for the first time. Thinking they've come up with some life altering concept, but it's just nonsense.
@@dostoyevsky1222There were two groups that came out of Hegel's ideas, and ironically James Lindsay does mention them: the young Hegelians and the old Hegelians, the former akin to socialists, the latter to fascists. One go go and investigate where the precise links are, see who quotes who, but already the scene of the crime looks very suspicious, given the location (Germany) and the timeframe (1800s).
@@dostoyevsky1222 Hegel is effectively just a step in the referential chain. Ultimately the concept is Gnowledge, gnosis. Modern marxist etc reference people like friere to justify their ideologies. People don't recognize the name and think nothing of it. Except friere foundationally cites hegel and marx etc.
Think of it like modern "journalism" where the "source" is another article who circularly cites the article you're reading. "Well, they cited their sources so this must be valid" ignore the fact that the source is fundamentally flawed.
Everything else is just fluff and flavor to the nonsense.
@@dostoyevsky1222 aah, got it, you're just a troll. Cool cool. Enjoy the algo bump tik.
Hegel's ideobabble sounds a lot like it's a variation of Gnosticism where the material is bad and the 'gnosis' is good.
It is Gnosticism.
Yep, it's just Kabbalah. Gnostic Luciferianism.
Recycling the same crap so the ideologues don’t have to come with anything new. It’s like modern Hollywood movies.
Nope. Matter and spirit (gnosis, knowledge) are thesis and anti-thesis. In perpetual struggle, yet they give birth to synthesis of something entirely new.
@@jackde5815 Hegel has no connections with Gnosticism. Gnosticism is TIK's Idée fixe 😁, secret cult that acts trough ages . Hegel simply discovered certain truth, natural law if you will.
Thesis: dead
Antithesis: alive
Synthesis: 🧟
LMAO 🤣
virus
lol
No wonder "lefties" become npcs, metaphorical zombies.
Zombie zombie zombeehehehe
This is another l video on RUclips I will watch as much as your videos on private vs public and Fascism. Great work TIK.
This is the third time I've watched it, since it came out.
The title already has me cracking up.
And here, I have been trying to bring "psycobabble" back all this time....
Meh, this works!
ideocracy
It is accurate though
yes and it points to him never reading Hegel
@@johnwolf2829 I like truthiness myself, but Colbert hasn't been good since he canceled the Colbert Report and stopped voice acting.
I just have this image of Plato’s heaven being a place where if you sit down to make a painting Plato will come running up to you bawling his eyes out screeching “you ruined it! That empty canvas was a perfect form of a canvas and now it is a mere object!”
I entirely believe that Diogenes broke into Plato's heaven to do exactly this, and then lecture Plato on how he's entirely wrong. Yes, I know that's contradictory, but it's funny.
Would you do exactly what you did in your life, if you could be lets say 7 years old again ?
Diogenes was by far a better philosopher than Plato
@@TallSkinnyGod Sure buddy. By those standards, the modern day Diogenes is getting spat at on the corner of an intersection while begging for money. Sounds like you should put your money where your mouth is.
Incorrect, Plato would flex on you and challenge you to a boxing match if you dared to disagree with him.
From what I've heard, Hegel is infamously dense, hard to understand, and prone to using vague words that nobody else uses even in the original German. Translations only make this worse.
@@CantusTropus that is true! Even the original is nearly incomprehensible at times
So its nonsensical trash written by someone likely mentally ill. Got it.
Wow. I have had some formal training in philosophy but this video really helped to complete a lot of thoughts and ideas that I have come into contact with over the last few years. This video and your ideas have significant value and use. I really appreciate your work, thank you.
James Lindsay and the New Discourses has incredible in-depth research on this stuff too, for those interested in more information.
These are my favorite videos of yours. I love your ww2 stuff but all the philosophical and religious talk behind our past and current day ills has captivated me.
The most important trick of cults is to keep the cultists in a state of perpetual confusion. It is the ability to confuse the cult members that gives the leader his power and authority and gives him the appearance of unreachable knowledge and understanding that can bring peace. Bonus points if you manipulate emotionally loaded concepts, frustrations fears and challenges and pretend to have insight to resolving them.
Is this about Tik?
Well sure, but it starts with us giving our power away to them...
Socialism is the opposite of communism. This topic is censored by the communists. Communists are the censors. This guy is confusing people
The fallacy and issue of cult rejectors is that you believe that the leader of a cult do not believe in his ideology. 🤦🏼 They probably do believe in it as every other member.
@@user-kp8um6yt8jI wish
Hi. You underestimate the role of Kant in all that. In particular, for Plato and even for Aristotle, universals are not in the mind but exist in themselves. That is why they are never changing. It is Kant who is mainly responsible for the shift from universals to mind-related concepts, which made Hegel's dialectics possible. It is according to him, not to Plato, that the mind shapes the empirical reality. Besides, it is not insignificant that Hitler's favorite philosopher was not Hegel but Schopenhauer, who considered himself a true Kantian and Hegel as an arch-enemy. Finally, the claim that, for Marx, the material reality is fake is something new to me. Indeed, as a materialist, he must consider objects grasped by the senses ultimately real, mustn't he? How, then, could they be fake for him?
Yes if anything Marx is a materialist.
People like OP are adored by the ppl who are like “Not only does nothing good come out of leftism, but any and all kind of evil out there are only possibky leftist”
As a religious person, I strongly dislike Hegel, because I don't agree with basically anything he says, but some of his clownish ideas are often how my religion is presented by others who don't know better (but think they do). Never mind the brilliant minds of Aquinas and Gregory and so many others who could do intellectual laps around Hegel and made a strong bedrock for philosophically articulating individual rights and civil liberties. No, people just look at Hegel.
The bit about normal Christians just going by faith when responding to the contradiction of God is inaccurate.
Great video about Hegel btw, but the assumption here isn't right.
What Christians SHOULD say (and have said for 2000 years) is that God can't do things that are contradictory -- not because he's subject to some higher idea of logical consistency, but because logical consistency is in his nature. He IS logic, just like he IS love. He is the source of these things, so he can't act in a way that's misaligned with his being.
Therefore, Christians don't just go by blind faith, and then they also solve the problem of God being a contradiction.
Roman Catholic here, thank you for actually understanding how the Christian view on God works... So many just take the modern takes on God and think it just is what it is.
Lmfao youre spouting ideobabble
@@GehrkeClinton He really is not... It's classical theism. Litteraly the simplest possible way to view God.
What is a real ideobabble for example is moral oughts somehow coming to exist under atheism... Now that's a crazy one they say !
Right. A contradiction isn't "a thing" it's just an incoherent collection of words.
In Spain, we started recently to use the neologism "politiqués" (politiKES) to name the language that politicians use to say nothing with many words.
It is more a way of using language to masquerade intentions than a real language, but I'm pretty sure you get the point.
"Ideobabble", you are welcome.
We call it "word salad" in the US.
Or politispeak.
In Brazil, we call this Politiquês
Leftists use language not to communicate but to manipulate.
Ah ya mean maggats then huh they do this ALL the time.
"Although we need the word
to keep things known in common,
people still treat specialists
as if their nonsense
were a form of wisdom."
-Heraclitus
3000 odd years, people still haven't learned.
Greatly informative video, I would love to see more. All the best to you from Sweden!
If there's one thing I can say I've learned from your dives into Hegel is that, whether intentional or not, most discussions about philosophers treats the writings as if they're in a vaccuum to the detriment of understanding the full context. I greatly appreciate the focus you put on who inspired their writings, and when they were making rebuttle to other writers.
Imagine making a nearly hour-long video about Hegel's influence on political movements without once mentioning Hegel's political philosophy, or even Aristotle. It is precisely misunderstandings and intentional misrepresentations of Hegel, like this video, that are the basis of Marxism and fascism, not Hegel's philosophy. He was a constitutional monarchist, btw--along with being an Aristotelian, not a Platonist--and in his system private property was the mechanism whereby individuals secured their rights against the monarchy (thus creating a stable state). Moreover, the statement that Hegel agreed with Bohme is factually, flat-out incorrect. In the third volume of his lectures on the history of philosophy, he critiques Bohme as an incoherent mystic, even going so far as to conclude his remarks by stating that he could not reconcile himself to Bohme's philosophy--although he did admire the man's piety.
As regards his philosophy of religion: its fundamental crux is that it is our duty to know God because God's nature is to be known; hence why God posits himself in opposition to himself. He states in his 'Philosophy of Mind', "What we have said above about the nature of mind is something which philosophy alone can and does demonstrate; it does not need to be confirmed by ordinary consciousness. But in so far as our non-philosophical thinking, on its part, needs an understandable account of the developed Notion of mind or spirit, it may be reminded that the Christian theology, too, conceives of God, that is, of Truth, as spirit and contemplates this, not as something quiescent, something abiding in empty identicalness but as something which necessarily enters into the process of distinguishing itself from itself, of positing its Other, and which comes to itself only through this Other, and by positively overcoming it--not by abandoning it. Theology, as we know, expresses this process in picture-thinking by saying that God the Father (this simple universal or being-within-self), putting aside his solitariness creates Nature (the being that is external to itself, outside of itself), begets a Son (his other 'I'), but in the power of his love beholds in this Other himself, recognizes his likeness therein and in it returns to unity with himself; but this unity is no longer abstract and immediate, but a concrete unity mediated by the moment of difference; it is the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son, reaching its perfect actuality and truth in the community of Christians; and it is as this that God must be known if he is to be grasped in his absolute truth, as the actual Idea in and for itself, and not merely in the form of the pure Notion, of abstract being-within-self, or in the equally untrue form of a detached actuality not corresponding to the universality of his Notion, but the full agreement of his Notion and his actuality."
If you want to critique Hegel, fine, there is plenty in Hegel to critique, but at least read Hegel instead of relying on James Lindsay's hysterical pablum.
Do you have any easily digestible resources to get a grasp of what Hegel taught?
I don’t particularly want to delve into a book of jargon and a lot of videos I see online are very surface level wishy washy.
Cheers
@@thepouchka Unfortunately, no. His philosophy is not very amenable to summary. The only way to really get a grasp of what Hegel thought is to read Hegel. Along with a reasonably comprehensive understanding of history and philosophy. Basically, you've got to be in it for the love of the game. However, if you're just looking for a few convenient talking points to shut down people who, like the author of this video, namedrop Hegel dismissively to show what a smartypants they are, just ask them to explain Hegel's critique of Kant's moral philosophy, or whether Hegel believed Spinoza was an atheist, pantheist, or acosmist. You won't need to know the answers, you can just watch them sputter.
@@freejazzravethrash8849 Yeah that’s what I suspected, not sure how much I could commit to learning about a self referencing esoteric field like Hegel but maybe one day.
So do you disagree with everything in this video or just the point which you commented on?
@@thepouchka Everything thing in this video is wrong. The assertion that Hegel considered himself to be God is probably the most fucking retarded thing I've ever heard in my life. The only way to achieve that reading of Hegel is to have never read Hegel at all. Likewise, the only real danger in his system of philosophy is that people like the author of this video use its inscrutability to intimidate impatient, insecure people; conversely, the only real benefit of mastering it is being able to criticize pseudo-intellectuals who dismiss Hegel out of hand. I wouldn't call him esoteric, though. Just burdensome and time consuming.
@@freejazzravethrash8849🫳🎤☝️☝️🕶️👌
This video makes me think of “Star Trek, a cashless “advanced” society where everything works somehow with no real explanation other than “we evolved”.
@@robertwarner-ev7wp No. I watch brilliant people who just cannot come close to understanding human nature.
Star Trek was commie propaganda, in case you haven't noticed.
I think they don’t want to understand human nature, because if they did they would see their folly.
i love this talk. i recently joined this channel. the special and satisfying features of the talks of this channel are the emphasis on the big picture, universality, and essence. so EDUCATIVE. i love it
The Pythagorian Theorem is used everyday all around you, but you'd only know that if you actually produced any tangible goods. But I guess bridges and homes that don't collapse on themselves aren't important. Who really needs trigonometry in their lives?
That was the moment TIK lost the engineering and science background viewers. Kinda odd he chose to mock the pythagorean theorem which is perfectly based on reality vs the other mystic oddities from the Pythagoreans.
@@gbjrco Probably because those Ancient Greeks predated Christianity or some crap.
I don't think he said it not used anywhere at all. Just that most people don't use it in their daily lives.
@@21nickik you'd be really surprised by how many people actually use trigonometry in their daily lives. Home builders, mechanical engineers, architects, civil engineers, machinists, etc. It's used at some level in just about everything around you. The same goes for geometry in general
Why are you so angry over a joker?
Heraclitus: there are two worlds
Brocrates: wdym?
Heraclitus: this world we are in is fake, but there is another that is real
Brocates: woah, how do you know this one’s fake and that one’s real?
Heraclitus: bc you cant see, touch, feel, or interact with this other world, or really define it at all.
Brocates: So… it’s not real?
Heraclitus: wdym?
Something I realized at the 40 minute mark where Marx is saying his dialectic materialism is the opposite of Hegel's, and as you pointed out Marx has issues with truthfulness. James Lindsey fell into the trap in one of his videos of saying Marx took Hegel's idea and turned the pyramid upside down. This reminded me of a critique of Marx in Pages of Socialist History by Tcherkesoff where he stated that Marx was a plagiarist who word for word stole the ideas of others, claimed they originated with him, and would then criticize the person he stole the ideas from saying they had everything backwards.
Thanks for the recommendation!
Sounds like Marx was a weasel JEW, but I repeat myself.
The Trinitarian God of Christianity can know himself as he is three persons in perfect communion and the creation of man was an act of loving creation, not because God lacked a looking-glass. If only these guys had spent a bit more time in Sunday school, all this could have been avoided.
As a Christian, it's obvious to me that Hegel started put with a flawed notion of who God is. "The eye I see God through is the eye God sees me through" well thats just objectively, God is clearly apart from man. Any basic reading of...any holy book will make that obvious!
As a Christian, you have your dialectics to enforce.
Well, you are wrong. The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed. God gives you a freedom to see Him as ever you want. And God is distinctly NOT apart of man (Son of Man) .
"Ideobabble" for ideological jargon is a good word. It's bound to catch on. Good for you.
yeh its a good one
Or you can just say "dogma" which has the same meaning.
Idealism was actually one of the two main pillars of ancient philosophy, the other being Materialism with its main representatives Democritus and Epicurus who didn't believe in any transcended reality . Karl Marx thought of himself as a materialist philosopher and his university thesis had the title : "The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature".
Well I guess he fell into a hole from the other side > happens when you determine you know everything > you become rigid and kill off your own growth and block the path
@@CariMachet Please read Socialism, Utopian and Scientific by Friedrich Engels. Marx never determined he knew everything; he simply gave an analysis on capitol and the way the world works through different modes of production. Ideobabble is not a method to confuse people into believing them, that would never work. Ideobabble is a result of people not understanding the lingo associated with the theory which they assume you've already read before reading what they're writing. The quote by Marx used at the beginning to introduce the idea of Ideobabble was one removed from context of hundreds of pages.
Your skill in evvading Aristotle is worthy of modern mainstream philosophy. Are you a professor?
@@CariMachet Are you implying Marx was a utopian who thought he knew everything? That is easily disproven by reading any of his work, his opinions on things were constantly changing and he believed in dialectical materialism, not utopianism.
@@otdatchest I think Marx was a sociopathic idiot > I am an anarchist and stand with Bakunin
Going through this again. It is the gift that keeps on giving. Great presentation. Thank you for the reference to Piekoff. Treasure trove of the finest kind. Objectivism is a solid base to work off of.
This right in line with James Lindsay's work, which is great. The more people putting the message out the better!
I would agree they are similar, but the difference is James Linsday seems to like to use his own form of Ideobabble. His train of thought isn't Ideobabble, so I wouldn't put him in with the Hegel's of the world, but man, listening to his word salad is REALLY tough, whereas, Tik talks much more plainly and can be understood without making your head swim with a bunch of words you need to have created a dictionary for.
@@williamdowns1917 Well I find James is really trying to define everything they mean and translate the babble.
Yeah, TIK to me is like cliff notes James Lindsay on this topic, LOL. And I do mean that as the highest compliment to TIK and Lindsay. James talks like someone who lives in the world of academia, and TIK is more like the working man's summary. I enjoy both based on mood. Both doing God's good work. 👍👍
Hegel's entire philosophy starts from the recognition that there are things about which logic and experience cannot provide definitive answers. Limits for human logical and empirical knowledge. The Kantian 'noumenon', so to speak.
Obviously one approach is to say 'well then, let us not discuss these things any further, let us stick to the tanks', which is of course a possible outcome and the current domain of Science
But on the other hand, it is hard to see why self-impose such limits, and why the human mind cannot use other instruments of investigation, or at least make an attempt.
As for contradiction, contradiction is not seen as a 'good' thing, but as something that exists in our experiencing the world, in our "being and thinking the world".
'Reality' (and/or our experience of reality) is not always logical and non-contradictory.
Hegel's philosophy is an attempt to deal with the contradiction and with the noumenon (which can be seen as two faces of the same coin). Hegel does not reject contradiction as a mere error of the intellect, but assumes that it can be something structural, a possibility in the ontology of things. His dialectic is an attempt to deal with contradiction, to study it and eventually use it to "say something true about the noumenon".
I agree that Hegel lends itself to being trivialised and 'exploited' to reach aberrant conclusions, but Hegel's original intent is not to establish an irrationalist mysticism just for the sake of it, but rather to try to find a means of investigating issues and answering questions for which - by definition - logic and experience can say nothing
"Hegel's entire philosophy starts from the recognition that there are things about which logic and experience cannot provide definitive answers."
Well, that's where he's wrong.
-
"Limits for human logical and empirical knowledge. The Kantian 'noumenon', so to speak."
Yes, empirical knowledge alone isn't sufficient. We must use an Objective epistemology, not empirical.
-
" 'Reality' (and/or our experience of reality) is not always logical and non-contradictory."
Of course it is. Reality does not contradict itself. There may APPEAR to be contradictions, and man might error and make contradictions, but man making an error is not a contradiction in and of itself, nor is an appearance of a contradiction a contradiction. If you have a contradiction, that means that you (or someone else) has got something wrong, or there's a clue about reality that you've not yet understood.
-
"His dialectic is an attempt to deal with contradiction"
Exactly. This is the problem. By embracing contradictions, Hegel has rejected reality. He has assumed reality is not real, because it "contradicts" itself, even though it doesn't. This is where he's gone wrong.
-
"but Hegel's original intent is not to establish an irrationalist mysticism just for the sake of it"
Perhaps that wasn't his original intent, but that's certainly how it ended up being. Once you reject reality, you will end up in mysticism.
-
"but rather to try to find a means of investigating issues and answering questions for which - by definition - logic and experience can say nothing"
As explained in my recent video "But how do you know you're right" ( ruclips.net/video/chgZcPzfbeI/видео.html ), there is a method that can help you perceive reality that doesn't rely on just logic and experience. This method rejects empiricism and mysticism, because it is Objective. Therefore, these issues and questions you have are not "by definition" impossible like you said they were.
@@TheImperatorKnight
Well, that's a way to approach the issue.
But to claim that Reality, in all its ontological complexity, in all its possible epistemological interpretations, in all its infinite interactions, to the extremes, as a whole, is always and inherently non-contradictory... and everything that doesn't, is a mere illusion/appearance/error.. well its quite a bold claim.
For example, if human thoughts ontologically exist as real phenomena/events
and if human thoughts can be qualified as contradictory.. then real phenomena/events qualifiable as contradictory must be said to ontologically exist?
"When we consider where we should look for a philosophy most resembling the Hegelian dialectic, an answer that springs to mind is Taoism. The famous unity of yin and yang which one finds from the most ancient to the most modern Chinese philosophies, the mystical and mysteriously contradictory phrases of the Tao-te Ching by Laozi, and the self-inverting lines of thought one finds in the Zhuangzi are telling enough, but we also find the explicit position of the co-determination of opposites, that without the other there could not be the one. While to the common view it is Taoism that may strongly come to mind, the dialectical aspects of it are really found across various schools of Chinese philosophy." - Antonio Wolf, "The Tao of Dialectic," _Epoché_ 60 (March 2023).
Do you think that Taoism has contributed to the Chinese's acceptance and support of socialism?
That is a reasonable intellectual inquiry and merits plenty of thought.
If you look at it as the book of the way, essentially just the tao with none of the later cling on philosophers and the religious ideas then you would clearly see a book about the ruling of a nation or the governance of people and by extension wisdom for the governance of the self.
Within that original text it clearly expresses what could be considered an anti communist position and it also denounces religiosity and superstition.
It is of course greatly disappointing and ironic that later thinkers would try to use the text as the foundation of a popular religion full of all manner of superstition and then the same society so greatly shaped by the writing would utterly go off the rails even becoming communist down the road and in so very many ways utterly and outright behaving in the exact opposite way to what is described in the text which could be considered the sole most important philosophical treasure which emerged from the cultures, arts and thought of that region.
All I am saying by all of this, is that you may have a interesting theory, but whatever you find, please be kind to Laozi and the Tao, because everything that came after was essentially the work of people who were clearly just too dumb to understand anything he had written.
The comparison to hegel by way of how Laozi implies that the nature of the tao is not the toa that can be told is really trying to express the nature of the journey which one's lived experience will take them through and the every shifting perspective it will give them.
People try too hard to make it spiritual and new age, when in reality it is quite pragmatic.
Nope nope nope how dare you not criticize the sources of the evil Marxism. Are you a fifth columnist or something?!?!
It was the guns and mass murder/genocide that pursuaded the nationalist chinese to adopt communism.
Chinese never accepted it, it was forced up them through conquest and mao hated religion and tried to remove it. And if you look at Taiwan, south Korea and Japan they don't really seem any more socialist than European countries.
It confused them so much that socialist hot air seeemed a relieff.
4:43 It doesn't make sense to you because you haven't read the book, and have skipped to a random point in it devoid of any context that had been laid out.
You are a clown..
@@euroteng2905 "Ignorance is strength"
I don't think you realize how important your work is in the battle against this new dark age we're going through, Tik
yeah true the dark age since the beginning of recorded history lets go ugabuga again
What makes this a dark age? I’m honestly curious im not trying to debate
the battle for ancapistan or whatever hes fighting for
Well, it is not the dark age. It is simply fading of Western civilization, because it was eaten inside by those who we are not allowed to mention, but are closely related to current president of Ukraine 😁
Gnostics?...Greeks? I know what you're talking about and I think your full of it by the way
There's another term, for what you've used 'ideobabble' to point to, 'word salad'. Often, seemingly, used for the same reasons you reckon 'ideobabble' is used.
I'm currently evaluating the differences between Thunderclap Newman's "life is just a game, you fly your paper plane, there is no end" weltanschauung vs Procol Harum's "Life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" I'll let you know who wins after a few more beers...
We;ve been trying to get high without having to pay.
-Marianne Faithfull
Everybody knows this is nowhere.
-Neil Young
------
Reason becomes involved in darkness and contradictions.... [Kant, CPR]
Oh, my mind is messed up, going ‘round and ‘round. [Jimi Hendrix]
D’oh! [Homer Simpson]
Train To Nowhere-Savoy Brown
Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere-Neil Young
We've been trying to get high without having to pay-Marianne Faithfull
Love this video, but... Can I just complain for no good reason like a typical RUclips commenter should? Why is it in 50 FPS? Like, why not 30 or 60? PC monitors and modern TVs are typically display 60 FPS even in PAL regions nowadays, so why would you record a video in 50? It's very distracting because every 6th frame is dropped unless you enable VRR, which my office PC doesn't have.
Attaboy
Holy shit, that peikoff playlist is absolute gold, thanks Tik!
It took me a while to go through it, but it's great. There's also a book where someone collated everything Peikoff said in that series. I believe it's called "Founders of Western Philosophy: Thales to Hume"
Where is the playlist?
@@TheImperatorKnighthe also has a part 2 that's not available for free online. It covers everything from Kant to the Analysts and Existentialists. Someone like you though through it would spread great awareness.
@@dostoyevsky1222
Please be civilized and explain why .
Don't be like Father Stalin or Father Hitler .
When talking to a being that has the potential to reason always explain why you should or why you should not .
😊😊😊
9:44 sounds exactly like what many parents with Narcissistic or Borderline personality disorder do, they ignore the needs of the child and instead try to create a mini-me in order to see themselves, then punish the child harshly for not living up to whatever standards the parent set depending on their mood.
I think I have a pretty good guess on where Hegel's low self esteem and need to overcompensate comes from... :|
Just when you think it's Khorne, Nurgle, or Slaanesh,
It was TZEENTCH all along...
THAT BLUE BASTARD!
All according to plan...
Khrone: Fascism
Slaanesh: gender ideology
Nurgle: Reactionary ideology
#Blame Lorgar!
"On Critical Emperor Theory Praxis" aka "The Biography of Horus Lupercal"
Well, that brings hope, his plans seem to always lose.
Very interesting, thought provoking essay.
It made me realise 2 things:
- you are an atheist of a particular kind - an anti-Christian (hence why you've chosen Christians - not Jews, not Muslims, not Hindus - to emphasise the play of the "faith card)
- you don't actually know the difference between philosophy of science (headed by J. Popper) and actual science, particularly physics of the very large and physics of the very small (quantum mechanics) with all its implications about reality (the "objective reality" you cling to as the ultimate label)
This is good, though. It is again evidence that even rational people who in key fields strive for objective, truthful analysis sometimes fall prey to the superficiality of summaries (not quite Dunning-Kruger, but close).
I like being challenged, and TYKHistory is doing excellent work in challenging people (and exposing the frailties of the axis marxism-socialism-communism-fascism-actualism).
Finally, the video we all have been waiting for.
Im getting the feeling that they are either intentionally or unintentionally describing how god "intervenes"
Basically its to do with the "Theory" of quantum mechanics and schrodingers cat. That multiple outcomes are possible at the same time but the "agent" working in a blackbox chooses or favours a outcome and so..
So by this logic god is still in keeping with human freedom (Gods goal) but he selects the best outcome of human freedom. Obviously hegel is 100 years before quantum mechanics but this is what it seems to be to me. Or a similar idea.
As a Catholic, Hegel's whole "man is the mirror of God" and "God isn't complete" schtick is very much heretical in my opinion, along with all the gnostic stuff. Thank you for this very informative video
Well there is a reason the Church has suppressed Gnostics for millennia. It is the antithesis of Christianity. They think we can overcome our sin through ourselves alone, become God on earth and create a utopia, where as Christians believe it is through Christ's sacrifice alone that we can enter utopia when we die.
Forget all the "horns and tail fire & brimstone" views we have of the Devil, the real evil was when Lucifer convinced these philosophic individuals that he was enlightening them by turning them away from the Lord (Gnostics, etc)
This is my view, at-least
100%, God is already self sufficient, our existence is to be witnesses to his glory.
(42:32-42:42) "If God can do anything, can he not-exist?" I think your reasoning is flawed.
If something doesn't exist, it can't do anything because it doesn't exist. Because non-existance is not something you can do. So, existance can't do himself out of existance. That's the contradiction. The only thing non-existant, is not being. God cannot be non-being, because he is the principle of all being(s).
I thought of Obozo's "hope and change". It's a slogan about nothing, yet millions of simpletons fell in lockstep.
As a Christian (I hate using that sentence starter, but it's relevant) who came to the faith through scientific and historical evidence for it, there are few things as frustrating as hearing/seeing people say that they have to throw away reason to justify their faith.
And these are the people who end up representing us. Granted, a lot of Christians think this way, that there's not good evidence to prove their faith, so they simply "don't worry about it." Utter nonsense.
Though calling what you refer to in this video "Christianity" is... lackluster to say the least.
If you find faith through reason and evidence, is it really faith?
@@tbk2010 ...yes. You're still stepping out in faith and trusting God. People who don't believe in God have faith he doesn't exist technically.
Remember when that guy was calling you Tilk
Tilk history
How could I forget! People are currently asking me to make response videos to Marxist RUclipsrs who are calling me all sorts of names, but honestly their arguments suck and I just don't see the point. They're not honest, they're not listening, and they're talking complete Hegel.
Jaffa, Kree!
@@TheImperatorKnightlike freddo?
Do you watch them as you find them or ignore them if you think they are going to suck?
@TheImperatorKnight
Why bother responding to those losers?Unless it will help grow your channel and make you money all you're doing is punishing yourself.
Glad I found your channel. You have a way about you that makes listening easy! Thanks!
Ironically enough, the act of looking into ideas you disagree with - is very Hegelian. I.e. Hegel would very much approve of this video.
Based
Thank you! Finally someone said it
@@zombieRyujistop using this shit for brains internet rot
Hegel would agree that his writings are gibberish?
@junfour not quite. The idea is that reality is never to either extreme, but instead a synthesis of abstract ideals. So basically the synthesis between the thesis that he is always right and that he is always wrong is that his ideas are correct to some degree in that logic, to dumb it down a lot.
The thing is, that what we are dealing here is metaphysiscs, which is really shaky subject matter, since we are basically competing for best guesses. Which is why it is so infuriating, as a philosopher, to watch people who have no clue about the field just taking things out of context and being like "i don't understand this at first glance, so it must be wrong".
Fallout New Vegas was right on the money when Caesar talked about Hegelian dialectic.
There's a switch-up error at 12:13 with the definitions of homo and sapien. Great video btw, probably best one yet💯
17:05
Pythagoras' theorem
You make fun of Pythagoras' theorem as impractical but I used it to find the length of a piece of pipe for a chimney flue that I couldn't measure because of inaccessiblity.
It worked like a charm.
Meatloaf was a Hegelian who truly understood the meaning: "I would do anything for love, but I won't do that..."
WHAT, MEAT?! WHAT WON'T YOU DO?!!!
That. He would do anything but That.
Now the question is, who is That?
@@TheImperatorKnight "That" would apparently be the unactualized self that makes god unreal. 😆 "His Name is Robert Paulson"
This question burns as hard as trying to figure out who is so vain that they probably thought the song was about them? Which is ironic, because the song is definitely about them. But about who?
Take into account, Epic by Faith No More. "You want it all, but you can't have IT..." What is IT ?
All I know is now he's praying for the end of time
12:12 - A slight typo here, I know you know that "Homo" means "man" and "Sapiens" means "wise". I bet making these videos can be stressful!
And while I'm being a nitpicking jerk, "Böhme" isn't pronounced as "boomer" but more like "burr-meh" (in British, with a silent 'r').
This was a very informative video on Hegel. I also saw James Lindsey's video on the same subject but that was a bout 4hrs long; I appreciate your brevity very much.
TIK being the one with brevity? Am on the lookout for winged bacon.
Who cares? He doesn't exist anyway. But his thoughts are. 😂
@@SoMuchFacepalm Yes this is brief, compared to 4 hours! I like long form videos but this one at least doesn't take a whole afternoon ;)
@@Bonko78 My point was that TIK's videos are usually longer than Lindsey's.
Half an hour for a New Discourses Bullet vs five hours on Hilter's Socialism.
@@SoMuchFacepalm That's fine, but I meant to be specific. No worries.
“Ideobabble” is a good coinage. “Jargon” is technical language, which may serve a purpose of precise description in a special context but is ill-suited to a general audience. “Verbiage” would be a closer equivalent in this case. Thus, we could also call Hegel's writings "ideoverbiage". Anyway, I like "ideobabble" and think that it will catch on.
you quoted Meister Eckhart and tried to pass it off as Hegel. This whole video is an insane level of misinformation.
*every far-rightist in existence
@@alexzhang3870better to be far right than far left. You guys are responsible for socialism, marxisim, nazism, and fascism.
Were responsible for conservatism, reason and liberty.
@@Sam-lf3hnat least we aren’t responsible for death tolls in British colonies 💀
@alexzhang3870 the British empire is not implicitly left or rightwing.
Communism, fascism and nazisim are all inherently leftwing, and thus, the death toll of those three leftwing ideologies are on leftwing ideology.
@@Sam-lf3hn the emphasis is on colonization, which always is supported by ring wing parties. You can do some research about the debate between left and right on colonization in European countries after WWII, almost every right wing party supported continuous colonization and they uses argument like colonization benefitted the people being colonized( ignoring millions of them are intentionally starved to maximize profit for homeland companies).
Every single time he refers to Hegel my Google Home activates.
Well, ain't that ironic.
Why do you have Google Home???
Nice explanation, Lewis. Thank you so much.
I don't know if it is a 'nice explanation'... It was certainly something! 😂
@@TheImperatorKnight It's not just "something", it's a lot deeper than that. Again, thank you.
Nietzsche was also a big influence on hitler. So much so that he had a sculpture of him and Mussolini gifted him a copy of thus spoke Zarathustra
I agree, but Nietzsche's followers are adamant that he had zero influence on Fascism or National Socialism, so they're likely to criticize us if they see these comments.
The chapter in Zarathustra titled On The New Idol is an unambiguous denouncement of statism and secular humanism
@@TheImperatorKnight The difference is that Nietzchean influences were the rational empiricist ones, not metaphysical circlejerks.
@@TheImperatorKnight tl;dr #notallfollowers , with a hashtag for intentional cringe(?) Because why not if it catches you off guard.
Well shoot, I had a long comment I was typing, and then and it got all lost. Here's a shorter version at least.
Well, I'm not sure I count as a follower, as I haven't read too deep into him yet. But I don't hate what he's said and I'm starting to appreciate and understand it. If that's close enough then..here we go.
I should be surprised that those types of folks were influenced by him, and yet in retrospect I am not. I acknowledge it. I am the exception.
If I have to criticize you it will be for good reasons and aimed to be constructive, just like my comments in the past, and the one just now that got lost (rip). I don't criticize others for not liking people I like, or thier (and/or my) ideas. I criticize when I think something is wrong with what is being said..or sometimes, when something being said is almost entirely right, but I've sniffed out something wrong with the underlying attitude of the person saying it.
And....sigh, darn, my thought train steam ran out, nevermind, this is a complete thought, I'm sure aure it'll be easy to mock, it's absolutely disjointed, and I'm not likely to read a response ..so...have at it, whatever.
I am still contemplating that video about truth you put out. I was avoiding your videos, but I'm wondering now what to think of your current perspective at this time. I'll still have a lot to look through though. And I am concerned about this philosophy rabbit hole you are going into.
Know that I have gone down my own rabbit hole. Whatever you do, be open to being wrong, do not stick to dogma, not even philosophical dogma, if there is an idea you can't let go of, ask yourself why, and work it out.
I think I'll be around.
PS. Not sure what to make about RUclips restoring TIK back to the TheImperatorKnight again in the comment section, considering why you changed that in the first place.
The funny thing about Nietzsche is that the people who praise him the loudest are the ones who embody his ideas the least. Everyone wants to be an Ubermensch, but very few have the mindset necessary to become one.
Marx claimed that his theory was scientific, which he contrasted with "idealist" philosophers. He argued that the fall of Capitalism was inevitable because that was the way history would develop. Capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. So followers of Marx believe that the transition from capitalism to socialism will follow the transition from feudalism to capitalism as day follows night. That's why communism is like a religion and the Revolution is like the Final Day of Judgement. And that's why Marxist-Leninists like to use the term "late Capitalism" because they really believe the end is nigh.
Hegel was the quintessential post-modernist even before modernism was a thing
When do you think Modernism began? Do you think the English and French Revolutions (which happened before Hegel) were pre-modern events? How was Hegel a post-modernist before Modernism?
Clearly you haven't read kant
@@4grammatonpost modernism is when many big long word that make my brain hurt
@@4grammaton Luther maybe with his supernatural nightmares?
@@puma7171 Luther was a regress to pre-modernism, at least at first.
TIK makes a great point here about how we create words that describe the elements in our world. This fact is why referring to “proper” English is rubbish, all languages are evolving.
Ion know whut you meen, prop' English finna be cap (/s)
I'll grant you that there's linguistic change, but there's evolving, then there's devolving.
For example, I wouldn't call the average inner city American English an "evolution". It's closer to the series of grunts and mumbled nonsense depicted in the movie Ideocracy.
@@booberry6715 AAVE is rooted in how low IQ rednecks/hillbillies spoke. It's intellectual laziness, nothing more, nothing less
I guess Heraclitus was right about the world being change.
@@AN474-e1ono.
The point that they have no concrete policies and their entire messaging is just vague "make things better" reminds me of recent video essay by MentisWave on praxis. It just goes from a different angle, but also concludes that socialists do it, because if they had to say something concrete and lay out their policies, it wouldn't be appealing and just obvious bad policies when scrutinized, hence they rely on the abstract and ideas, rather than practice towards them
Fundamentally, you are asking a person with a process ontology to give a description of an entity.
You see, as soon as they answer your question, they have sided with a thesis against an antithesis, and their allegiance is to the synthesis. But once that synthesis becomes concrete by being named, it becomes another thesis with another antithesis, and so isn't a synthesis.
Their belief isn't in any particular outcome of a dialectical process but to dialectical movement itself. Marx said philosophers used to try to understand the world but the point is to change it.
Elon Musk recently summed them up pretty well.
Appearing to do good, while actually doing evil.
They *claim* to be building some kind of utopia... which therefore "justifies" anything that they "need" to do, in order to bring about their "utopia".
This whole video really just boils down to "any complex terms that I don't understand is meaningless and deceptive so don't look into it at all! Be skeptical, but don't be skeptical of the things that I don't want you to be". Your whole video is basically making the case for Newspeak, and that we should never take complex philosophy seriously, because it's difficult to understand, and therefore evil. You're literally an Obscurantist, like just genuinely presenting information in the most abstruse way possible to stop any further inquiry.
As if Hegel, Marx or Gentile were any less obscuranist in their language
You have no understanding of ontology, which explains your difficulty of understanding being vs becoming.
You, as a modernist, explain that what exists is that it can be perceived by the senses.
The likes of you would have believed that there's no way that radiowave particles could exist because it couldn't be perceived by the senses until acientific instruments later revealed that they do.
So you limit your understanding of reality to that that can only be oerceived by the senses and by extension instruments.
Yet, im sure you would argue that your ideas have a certain element of reality otherwise how would you even understand yourself as a being if your interpretation of yourself and everything else around you only occurs in the realm of ideas.
You believe that the wisdom of these philosophers amounts to ideobabble yet you are coming to the conclusion through a sort of reasoning that is only occuring in your ideal mind rather than by observing some external to you.
Even those, external things you observe are only interpreted and given meaning through your ideas. Your ideas being something abstract and not concrete whatsoever.
Therefore, you being the ultimate judge of reality can only come to a judgement through reasoning of ideas then you can conclude that ideas is reality. There is no reality without ideas because there would be no one to observe it so who would say it exist if there is no one to idealize reality?
So yes Giovanni Gentile is right and many other philosophers are right and you can safely say this without necesarily agreeing with the necesary political or ideaological conclusions that followed their conclusions.
I'm not a modernist.
Superb points, I’m sure everyone makes value judgments - sometimes this leap to attain value is taken for granted by some people.
This video is a great approach to Hegel and the Hegelian ideas that led to so much trouble.
17:13 I have actually used Pythagorus once on a building site. 3 4 5 and you have the corner of your building. I never thought I would see the day, but I have used it.
You have to use geometry to build anything, the " math is useless" idea is just something soft hands say.
Yep, you really have to use it in life. Real material life.
Whether you proclaim that you have identified all relevant aspects in your definition (be it with a willingness to add special rules devoid of structural understanding) or proclaim that there is no such thing as a definition that persists across time and place, it's all the same spectrum. And to propagate ideas, in history it is always cult tendencies that proved fruitful. So the question isn't so much what is a cult. The question is does it work for the current time and place. Kinda like how Austrian Economics and its succession in Monetarism is held together by being useful to some people and a LOT of eminence over empirical evidence.