Im so happy he cites the philosophers he was inspired by or align with his ideas. Also, I'm really happy he explains the definitions he's using so clearly. This man is didactically gifted
thank you so much for this video, very informative, interesting and deepened my understanding of liberty and freedom through a various account propounded by a number of political philosophers.
Such a great lecture! Have anyone of you heard of this new book that just came out called, 'Quest for Freedom. An Interview with Quentin Skinner'? I'd really recommend it if you haven't read it yet!
Going back to the inspiration for the talk which was to model it after the Genealogy of Morality. In that work, slaves regained some power over themselves by redefining what was good. Thus by taking the moral high ground, they eventually forced the ruling class to be subjugated by their slave morality. This end-run strategy gives those without freedom a way of retaliating. So what would happen if you studied freedom, not by what enslaves people, but instead studying how freedom is gained or reacquired. In a sense, it is a more positive way of defining freedom.
If a man living in solidarity in the wild. Does he have liberty? He is subjected to his own survival and depends on the environment or the lion. Let alone say: The salvage man is living on the mercy of the mother nature. Therefore he is not free.
A rather different perspective is offered by the philosopher Mortimer J. Adler in his book, "The Common Sense of Politics." Adler takes pains to distinguish "liberty" from "freedom." He defines liberty as freedom constrained by justice. The difficulty, of course, if reaching a societal consensus over the socio-political arrangements and institutions that hold the promise of a just society.
Freedom is pure: do what u please. Liberty is political freedoms: collectively agreed upon freedoms that defines the civic or civil - leading to justice. Political societies come first.
@@Robsay01 I'll continue to use Adler's distinction. We might collectively agree to treat quite unjust behavior as acceptable under law. Political societies have done this from ancient times to this very day.
This doesnt work because in other languages that separation doesnt exist, in spanish for example, you only have one word to say Freedom and it is "Libertad".
The wonders of the internet. A response to a comment I posted four years ago. Well, at least I am still here to offer something in return. Languages evolve over time. I do not speak Spanish but I have a feeling there is a way to express this distinction. Every society has social norms and formal laws governing behavior. They must have words or phrases that convey when the actions of an individual exceed what is generally accepted as just.@@gonx9906
13:36 So looks like Hobbes introduced the mind-body dichotomy in political thinking about liberty. Locke got it right - physical force that negates the free-will also negates liberty.
Aren't we slaves to our desires (natural human tendencies, DNA) and natural catastrophes? Can we ever be fundamentally free? Are Buddha's teachings the final frontier?
"Everything is connected", the content of "All is Vibration", and in combination, Actuality, are logarithmic condensation modulation cause-effect Singularity positioning, Quantum Chemistry and Logic. The word "Liberty" introduces the concept of relevant proportioning, a case by case analysis of abstractions.
If I was there. What would Skinner say that freedoms and liberties are not the same? Freedoms are individual and liberties are collective freedoms (I.e., agreed upon as a whole) I’m free to rob people but I violate the freedom and liberty acceptance of others doing so. Political liberties prevent me from succumbing to crimes because of the consequence of laws and punishment. I have the freedom to rob someone but not the liberty. Physical interference is in play here.
"I like your tie" is a super way for a volunteer to ask, "is that material tie a clip-on or does the rope go all the way around your neck?" Tie and title are linked to the question of what a slave cannot do in the name of an owner: 1) Can a slave choose how to be addressed? In practical terms, today, it is impossible to choose your legal title. 2) Today, it is impossible to say that your authority, to life, comes from your real authors, your parents, without being charged with a mania such as drapetomania. There is only one valid, real, legal authority over everyone in the world today - the global *cult* of 'sovereign' bankers with their voluntarily contracted, registered, voters in bankers' militarily enforced Exclusive Economic Zones forced to use a monopoly currency. Or else it's off to a sovereign bank's concentration camp for re-education. The owners of people, as chattel, are the owners of the volunteers who answer to colonial titles put in front of their given name. Who here is at liberty to state that their title is not Mister or Miss etc. Who here is at Liberty to say they don't come from and thereby don't belong to a corporate sovereign state? Remember, a statement of sovereignty is not secular. End Global Apartheid
I hate this debate because it's a way to ruin simple pleasures someone probably invented for little more than the purposes of ruining someone else's simple pleasures for the purposes of spite, that they then discovered they could profit from it ruined much of civilization and has cursed everyone to only be allowed the reduced essence of everything because it has to be endlessly debated: in this case a wedding ring when it would be much easier to wear a piece of jewelry that accurately signaled how much of a commitment one was looking for so one could find someone else who wanted that same level of it.
What's with children? Can't say children are free. Then again, we all are children. Then again, I don't believe free will exists. Still money is the big spoiler I think. Coercing everyone, to not be able enjoy doing something unless they get rewarded with it. Takes away all the curiosity and fun really.
Im so happy he cites the philosophers he was inspired by or align with his ideas. Also, I'm really happy he explains the definitions he's using so clearly. This man is didactically gifted
Scholarly (I presume), lucid, and entertaining. I need to buy this man's books.
Thanks Stanford for sharing.
4:00 is when the lecture actually begins
Thanks
The light of his erudition is too much for my eyes!
a thorough and clear analysis of this genealogy, thanks for posting
thank you so much for this video, very informative, interesting and deepened my understanding of liberty and freedom through a various account propounded by a number of political philosophers.
Excellent lecture. Read Quentin on Hobbes.
Such a great lecture! Have anyone of you heard of this new book that just came out called, 'Quest for Freedom. An Interview with Quentin Skinner'? I'd really recommend it if you haven't read it yet!
Thanks Stanford! Would be nice to have this also as an audio file so folks can listen podcast-style in the car or whatever.
I listen to these lectures on RUclips in my car. Just hook phone to radio. U don't really need to watch it, just listen.
Thought provoking! Thank you.
Thank you!! (from Brazil)
Thanks for posting! An enlightening lecture.
Brilliant and cogent, thanks!
Going back to the inspiration for the talk which was to model it after the Genealogy of Morality. In that work, slaves regained some power over themselves by redefining what was good.
Thus by taking the moral high ground, they eventually forced the ruling class to be subjugated by their slave morality. This end-run strategy gives those without freedom a way of retaliating. So what would happen if you studied freedom, not by what enslaves people, but instead studying how freedom is gained or reacquired. In a sense, it is a more positive way of defining freedom.
Because being a "victim" is currently very popular.
There's clever, then there's this guy.
What a great lecture.
I find this fascinating as a tracking of the decay of ideas parallel to societal decadence.
What do you mean exactly?
@@gonx9906 liberty starts as freedom from tyranny and ends as freedom from hardship and consequences.
@@seandilallo8718 still not following you, could you be more specific?.
Wonderful lecture.
Why does this video not have subtitles? Are they not created automatically today? Very weird, could have used them.
Brilliant
If a man living in solidarity in the wild. Does he have liberty? He is subjected to his own survival and depends on the environment or the lion.
Let alone say: The salvage man is living on the mercy of the mother nature. Therefore he is not free.
A rather different perspective is offered by the philosopher Mortimer J. Adler in his book, "The Common Sense of Politics." Adler takes pains to distinguish "liberty" from "freedom." He defines liberty as freedom constrained by justice. The difficulty, of course, if reaching a societal consensus over the socio-political arrangements and institutions that hold the promise of a just society.
Freedom is pure: do what u please. Liberty is political freedoms: collectively agreed upon freedoms that defines the civic or civil - leading to justice. Political societies come first.
@@Robsay01 I'll continue to use Adler's distinction. We might collectively agree to treat quite unjust behavior as acceptable under law. Political societies have done this from ancient times to this very day.
@@nthperson 👍
This doesnt work because in other languages that separation doesnt exist, in spanish for example, you only have one word to say Freedom and it is "Libertad".
The wonders of the internet. A response to a comment I posted four years ago. Well, at least I am still here to offer something in return. Languages evolve over time. I do not speak Spanish but I have a feeling there is a way to express this distinction. Every society has social norms and formal laws governing behavior. They must have words or phrases that convey when the actions of an individual exceed what is generally accepted as just.@@gonx9906
That was very good.
13:36 So looks like Hobbes introduced the mind-body dichotomy in political thinking about liberty. Locke got it right - physical force that negates the free-will also negates liberty.
1. Hobbes on Liberty.
2. John Locke on Liberty.
3. Jeremy Bentham on Liberty.
4. Isaiah Berlin on Liberty.
42:22 Another prominent contemporary theorist who takes this view is Michael Sandel at Harvard.
48:00 bookmark
59:33 bm
At 59:33 i encourage those to look into panopticism (premature idea)
48:42 roman law definition of freedom
1:17:36 No you are very disappointed at that question Professor.
Can someone explain what he means when he says "Foucauldian mood" and the thing about "Exhaustive taxonomy"?
Same question
@@shubh_2733 Read Foulcault's The Order of Things.
Aren't we slaves to our desires (natural human tendencies, DNA) and natural catastrophes? Can we ever be fundamentally free? Are Buddha's teachings the final frontier?
30:00
When you got a presentation the night before
"Everything is connected", the content of "All is Vibration", and in combination, Actuality, are logarithmic condensation modulation cause-effect Singularity positioning, Quantum Chemistry and Logic.
The word "Liberty" introduces the concept of relevant proportioning, a case by case analysis of abstractions.
Humankind is a very wild Society Humanidade needs medical and to saúde and crente the cure of our brain
We need somente we need to cure our brain !!!!!!
alguien sabe porque mis profesores me dejan un video sin subtitulo y en ingles??
We are liminar Wilde animais!!!!!!!!
If I was there. What would Skinner say that freedoms and liberties are not the same? Freedoms are individual and liberties are collective freedoms (I.e., agreed upon as a whole) I’m free to rob people but I violate the freedom and liberty acceptance of others doing so. Political liberties prevent me from succumbing to crimes because of the consequence of laws and punishment. I have the freedom to rob someone but not the liberty. Physical interference is in play here.
Because other languages only have one word for freedom, not two.
@@gonx9906 well, that’s their problem.
@@Robsay01 thats not how it works, lol.
@@Robsay01 thats not how it works, concepts need to be universal.
@@gonx9906 Okay. But that’s philosophy. Not the case with political science.
"I like your tie" is a super way for a volunteer to ask, "is that material tie a clip-on or does the rope go all the way around your neck?" Tie and title are linked to the question of what a slave cannot do in the name of an owner:
1) Can a slave choose how to be addressed? In practical terms, today, it is impossible to choose your legal title.
2) Today, it is impossible to say that your authority, to life, comes from your real authors, your parents, without being charged with a mania such as drapetomania. There is only one valid, real, legal authority over everyone in the world today - the global *cult* of 'sovereign' bankers with their voluntarily contracted, registered, voters in bankers' militarily enforced Exclusive Economic Zones forced to use a monopoly currency. Or else it's off to a sovereign bank's concentration camp for re-education.
The owners of people, as chattel, are the owners of the volunteers who answer to colonial titles put in front of their given name. Who here is at liberty to state that their title is not Mister or Miss etc. Who here is at Liberty to say they don't come from and thereby don't belong to a corporate sovereign state?
Remember, a statement of sovereignty is not secular.
End Global Apartheid
See Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty" and the Non-Aggression Principle.
I hate this debate because it's a way to ruin simple pleasures someone probably invented for little more than the purposes of ruining someone else's simple pleasures for the purposes of spite, that they then discovered they could profit from it ruined much of civilization and has cursed everyone to only be allowed the reduced essence of everything because it has to be endlessly debated: in this case a wedding ring when it would be much easier to wear a piece of jewelry that accurately signaled how much of a commitment one was looking for so one could find someone else who wanted that same level of it.
So since we all depend on each other we're all slaves... imquentinskinnerandthisisdeep
Who else is here from Reddit?
yes
Who cares? Also, mind your own business. It is not your concern, son.
I jo ờ không kni koooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
What's with children? Can't say children are free.
Then again, we all are children.
Then again, I don't believe free will exists.
Still money is the big spoiler I think. Coercing everyone, to not be able enjoy doing something unless they get rewarded with it. Takes away all the curiosity and fun really.
sounds like hes got a graphick imagination
I hope his speech has less weasel words than the introductory speaker.