Rick Roderick rocks, literally! His forthright,colloquial but rigorous argumentation and brilliant,easily understood examples to illustrate various propositions just caught me on...and he was a Marxist and therefore a Brother, RIP....
Perfecto! These lectures are fantastic and do what modern philosophers don´t do. This guy keeps it simple, easy to digest and understand. Put the flags and bunting out, I now have an interest and begin to understand what these people were trying to say.
An underrated aspect of this lecture series is how good of a job he's doing introducing Marx in early 90s America. People lost their entire livelihoods over suspected communism not all that long before these lectures. Even as late as 2016 all of mainstream media was using Red Scare tactics against Bernie Sanders (and it was quite effective)
So glad I found Professor Rick Roderick again. Amazing!! Look at us now in 2024. Give me an argument!!! Freedom is the trump card !!! Our Universities of our elite colleges have been out by powers of greed and power!
I think even Rick would be surprised how much more all these philosophical interpretations, even if contradictory, are in the frame in 2020, it seems like mix and match to me but perhaps they always have been, but are more manifest now.
I agree, in 2020 I think most of us have had to check ourselves. I had to ask myself, what does my being Left mean? That's how I ended up here - with this phenomenal teacher. @12:55
43:47 *Saint Rick* “If I’m up here saying like _criticize authority!_ A real bad feeling is the Monty Python joke right? ‘...criticize authority...’ [taking notes] and given my views of doing philosophy, nothing could make me more uncomfortable than that paradox.”
Mill is frequently criticized on these grounds. In face, one of my assignments in my first ethics course was to describe a hypothetical example. I would say that, if you view Utilitarianism as a moral philosophy (individual choice) as opposed to a political philosophy (the power and action of government), I believe the contradiction disappears entirely. To say otherwise requires that political Utilitarianism derives logically from moral Utilitarianism, which is certainly no easy task.
I'm always looking for new interesting lectures on Psychology/Philosophy, please let me know if you guys have any recommendations, would be highly appreciated
The crack down after 1 year of the Hundred Blooming Flowers campaign by Mao was brutal. It literally allowed him to figure out who all his enemies were...
I think he's using a very narrow definition of harm like direct, bodily harm. I would've loved to explore that some more. For example, if just causing injury or death is the extent of 'harm' a state is justified in preventing, then couldn't you argue that it's unjust for the cops to arrest me if I kidnap someone and keep them in my basement as long as they're well fed and taken care of?
According to Mill, indeed as the commenter above said. However I remember it from law lectures in The Netherlands this harm can be figuratively speaking also, and it is more used like this in Dutch law making as I understand it. E.g. if I play my music really loud and it ruins your right to enjoy your property (living in your house undisturbed) then that is also harm. In that definition harm is any impediment on the freedoms / liberties of another person. In Dutch harm - in the context of Mill - translates to damage actually.
In New York. The statue of liberty...would be kool❤ to see...david justice was my favorite base ball player he played in new york...1 time in a game.. he hit a huge home run..maybe 2... memories.
The idea of giving people money aligns with the idea that natural wealth belongs to all and should be shared. We can and should charge substantial fees to industries proportional to pollution emitted, natural resources extracted or wildlife habitat destroyed. A democratic society would set fees *just high enough* to bring impacts of various kinds into line with what most people think is acceptable. We can use a system of random polls to find what average opinion is on various questions. If poll respondents have some time to ponder questions and opportunity to discuss with others, they will be able to refer to expert opinion on the question(s) at hand. (Public policy will be influenced by trusted experts.) Sharing proceeds from environmental impact fees to all people would end abject poverty and would improve the fluidity of the job market. Job loss due to changing economic climate or technological change would be less disruptive and less stressful.
"Let a thousand schools of thought contend, let a thousand flowers bloom". Chairman Mao "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" Karl Marx "I am the spirit that negates. And rightly so, for all that comes to be Deserves to perish wretchedly" Goethe (from Faust)
Wilhelm Reich nailed it- religious sexual shame creates mass psychological pathology. Until we fix this and raise children without irrational body shame , all these other principles of mortality are moot points . You might say that we are secular now, but I believe sexual shame has simply been transfigured into body image shame, the shame has just taken on new forms. Matriarchal tribes (sex positive) had a lot less pathology. (Reich , Malinowski, study of Trobriands )
It is not just that negative and positive freedom are at odds with each other. Positive freedom is at odds with itself. Positive "freedoms" are to be provided by somebody who in the process cannot receive this very same positive "freedom" because he is ocupied in providing it.
John Stuart Mill was an imperialist though. Just as an example he supported British imperialism in India to help and "civilise" the "unfortunate Indian people" who he saw as "no better than animals." He's just like Samantha Power - always finding some new liberal excuse to exploit a foreign peoples in the name of helping and liberating them.
Yeah, you are right. But I would empathize with him in the sense that in his view of the world, general happiness comes from the capacity of liberty and self-improvement. Something that Indian people, because of how their culture has always been (ultra-hierarchical and massively divided with tons of poor people) was impossible. Though I do not justify NOW imperialism and destroying other people's culture. (not to mention taking their land and their natural resources.) I do think to asking that out of some mid 1800 english guy is a bit too much. I would cut him some slack. Especially considering that what he wanted was general happiness. (even if it was by the wrong means.)
I agree with a lot of his philosophical ideas. I'm not so sure about his character though. I feel people should have been smart enough in that time period or any time period to know that selfish imperialism helps nobody but the elites of the intervening country. It's just common sense that going into a foreign country with no real intention of helping others will not result in helping others. The problem is that the voices of those people who are more honest don't even enter the discussion or the history books. Take Bartolome de las Casas - one of the most despicable people in history, in my eyes at least. He is pathologically wired to give liberal precedence for imperialism the way Samantha Power does today. But the fact ppl from centuries ago to today are hard-wired to play this same game shows me that it's not just that people are misled by their time period. It's that those giving liberal precedence to foreign intervention are selectively favoured by imperialistic states to the point these people are like a specialized breed of people designed solely for that purpose. The need for all these phony excuses over so many centuries and up to our present day shows its more about pathological liars and hypocrites being selected for because they serve the greed of the ruling classes than it is about people being confused about what would truly help foreigners. Bartolome de las Casas and Samantha Power are smart enough to write volumes about the plight of others, world affairs, and how much others need to be "helped" through intervention, yet they are never ever smart enough to just oppose imperialism altogether and just write about that?
R.V. L. I must thank you. I have never heard of Bartolome de las Casas and Samantha Power and I did some research. You have a solid point, and it is true that most imperialist thinkers are also members or really hard supporters of the rulling class. Those thing in todays eyes really don't have an excuse. And today they continue so, that's that. But at least the world is catching on and not allowing it so much anymore. Remember the Crisis in Syria and how the US wanted to send troops, but they were not allowed to? (though probably they are giving military aid anyway) So probably in the future (near or far) we'll see a decline in imperialistic actions. I hope at least.
Franco Bongiovanni Yes, agreed. I think this is finally an age where more honest people can spread the word about what's happening. Sadly, this is probably more due to technological progress than anything else. Without the internet, states and supporters of power would probably continue on with whatever they could get away with. Syria is a good example. Samantha Power is doing precisely what de las Casas did which is painting a horrendous picture of life for the Syrians (or the Natives in de las Casas' case.) The suffering of these ppl is not untrue but they only do it to call for more intervention (even going as far as exploiting the Rwandan genocide.) And it's so evil the way ppl like that can create an image for themselves as a dissident and humanitarian. A real dissident is someone like Noam Chomsky. He's one of the most honest intellectuals I can think of.
Wonder how many kids today pick up on the references to Shirley McClain, Jesse Helms, or Kojak; or his remarks about Ronald Reagan. I think it's in his talk about " Nietzsche and his Progeny" that Roderick calls Reagan an ineffectual president, but says he was also "popular for his own popularity", by which I think he means that Reagan's appeal to a broad swath of Voters was based on his grandfatherly image. Reagan's age helped, but so did his ironic, condescending tone, which he perfected in that series of radio talks he gave after finishing his terms as Governor of California, and before he was nominated as the Republican candidate for the presidency in the 1980 election. Reagan pulled in votes from both doctrinaire Republicans and formerly liberal Democrats who were turned off by Jimmy Carter's dismal Public Image, his perceived post-Viet Nam "defeatism", and his attempts to save the environment (a concern that was relatively new to the American public back then) by getting people to turn down their thermostats. It was a contrast made in heaven for the Republicans: Carter on TV, addressing the nation in his wool sweater, versus Reagan in his sharp-looking, well tailored suit, smiling that big Hollywood smile, with that kindly, paternal way of putting down his opponents with witty quips, some of which he may have even come up with on his own.
It's like dominating over any group of people or even animals. They probably would have the power to take you out if they worked together but as long as they're not doing that you can intimidate them individually. Which might also be where legitimacy comes in, giving people a good reason to not work together to overthrow the state.
There was a rule. Male sadism. Moral philosophers who are entirely men engage in conversation that has its own blind spots. The Magus discussion provides a brilliant example of this. If you need another thick, real life example, see MAGA, USA, 2024.
Love Rick but the idea that freedom should be a positive thing is such wishful thinking… the best we should hope for is freedom from not freedom to. The only way to have freedom to is to interfere with someone else’s freedom from. In a wealthy technologically advanced society there is some possibility to give some people freedom ‘to’ things is somewhat possible without drastically reducing others freedom ‘from’ basically this wouldn’t even be a discussion if we didn’t find ourselves in the freest and most materially wealthy society ever. In any other society in history since agriculture the idea of having freedom ‘to’ do and have whatever you want would be ridiculous but at least the freedom ‘from’ coercion might have been at least considered a good thing even if it has never really been achieved
This guy does not understand a Kant given his introductory examples. Read Kant or think for yourself. I can only assume this guy thinks far too simply to understand Kant.
Everything you could call a system is also an abstraction. So i have no idea what "an abstraction from a real system of oppression" is supposed to mean. Edit: Ah! His incessant use of "real" betrays his materialism. I suppose Marxism tells him which concepts to consider real and which to consider an abstraction.
Isn't marxism paternalistic because it often assumes that the marxist analyst knows better what the interests of the oppressed are than these oppressed themselves?
![Rick Roderick on Kant and the Path to Enlightenment [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m-JW4X6QpPk/mqdefault.jpg)
![Rick Roderick on Kant and the Path to Enlightenment [full length]](/img/tr.png)
![Rick Roderick on Nietzsche on Knowledge and Belief [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WklSWj3-B1A/mqdefault.jpg)
![Rick Roderick on Hegel and Modern Life [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2MsNyR-epBM/mqdefault.jpg)
If your teacher can make you experience topics in a way that makes you feel smart, he is truly a great teacher
Rick Roderick rocks, literally! His forthright,colloquial but rigorous argumentation and brilliant,easily understood examples to illustrate various propositions just caught me on...and he was a Marxist and therefore a Brother, RIP....
I completely agree!!!
earthbuff1 Very well said! ✌️
Hell ya brother, Rick “the rock” Roderick. Except he may have been more of a Hegelian of the Zizek dimension.
*was
"Animals; Lions, Wales, seals, bears.
Y'all're fruits; cherries, grapes, stale pears."
-Cameron
(Cam'ron)Giles
IV. A. "The challenge of freedom is to find the new boundaries and then to figure out how to break them down." Perfect Synopsis
Perfecto! These lectures are fantastic and do what modern philosophers don´t do. This guy keeps it simple, easy to digest and understand. Put the flags and bunting out, I now have an interest and begin to understand what these people were trying to say.
An underrated aspect of this lecture series is how good of a job he's doing introducing Marx in early 90s America. People lost their entire livelihoods over suspected communism not all that long before these lectures. Even as late as 2016 all of mainstream media was using Red Scare tactics against Bernie Sanders (and it was quite effective)
They picked that up from Britain.
@@willowbell3756 who picked it up from Germany circa 1930’s
What he says about TV becomes really prescient when you consider social media
I enjoy your lectures thanks for sharing.
You’re welcome
Loved this!
So glad I found Professor Rick Roderick again.
Amazing!!
Look at us now in 2024.
Give me an argument!!!
Freedom is the trump card !!!
Our Universities of our elite colleges have been out by powers of greed and power!
Omg I read this comment right when he said it lol
I think even Rick would be surprised how much more all these philosophical interpretations, even if contradictory, are in the frame in 2020, it seems like mix and match to me but perhaps they always have been, but are more manifest now.
I agree, in 2020 I think most of us have had to check ourselves. I had to ask myself, what does my being Left mean? That's how I ended up here - with this phenomenal teacher. @12:55
Brilliant! A modern-day Socrates!
43:47 *Saint Rick* “If I’m up here saying like _criticize authority!_ A real bad feeling is the Monty Python joke right? ‘...criticize authority...’ [taking notes] and given my views of doing philosophy, nothing could make me more uncomfortable than that paradox.”
Thank you again
Mill is frequently criticized on these grounds. In face, one of my assignments in my first ethics course was to describe a hypothetical example. I would say that, if you view Utilitarianism as a moral philosophy (individual choice) as opposed to a political philosophy (the power and action of government), I believe the contradiction disappears entirely. To say otherwise requires that political Utilitarianism derives logically from moral Utilitarianism, which is certainly no easy task.
great speaker..
the rich and the poor are equally free to sleep under the bridges at night.. got it!
Is that Seth Green taking notes at 20:48?
The greatest freedom is the freedom to desire. The greatest desire is the desire to be free.
Desire is learned
Freedom is participation in power. - Cicero
I'm always looking for new interesting lectures on Psychology/Philosophy, please let me know if you guys have any recommendations, would be highly appreciated
Academy of Ideas channel
Michael Surgue
The crack down after 1 year of the Hundred Blooming Flowers campaign by Mao was brutal. It literally allowed him to figure out who all his enemies were...
what does it mean by 'harming others'? what's the definition of 'harm'?
I think he's using a very narrow definition of harm like direct, bodily harm. I would've loved to explore that some more. For example, if just causing injury or death is the extent of 'harm' a state is justified in preventing, then couldn't you argue that it's unjust for the cops to arrest me if I kidnap someone and keep them in my basement as long as they're well fed and taken care of?
According to Mill, indeed as the commenter above said. However I remember it from law lectures in The Netherlands this harm can be figuratively speaking also, and it is more used like this in Dutch law making as I understand it. E.g. if I play my music really loud and it ruins your right to enjoy your property (living in your house undisturbed) then that is also harm. In that definition harm is any impediment on the freedoms / liberties of another person. In Dutch harm - in the context of Mill - translates to damage actually.
Ilmu politik sangat melekat dengan ilmu filsafat
I sure do like listening to this guy 😉
I LOVE HIM.❤
this is a good lecture from EDU- Philosophy. i would appreciate if there is room to access more of this
You guys see Seth Green in the crowd @20:48? Didn't realize he was a fan of Mill!
In New York. The statue of liberty...would be kool❤ to see...david justice was my favorite base ball player he played in new york...1 time in a game.. he hit a huge home run..maybe 2... memories.
begins to talk about Mill's Liberty at 9:20
DJBLiZ thanks. This gentleman is a good professor
The idea of giving people money aligns with the idea that natural wealth belongs to all and should be shared.
We can and should charge substantial fees to industries proportional to pollution emitted, natural resources extracted or wildlife habitat destroyed. A democratic society would set fees *just high enough* to bring impacts of various kinds into line with what most people think is acceptable.
We can use a system of random polls to find what average opinion is on various questions. If poll respondents have some time to ponder questions and opportunity to discuss with others, they will be able to refer to expert opinion on the question(s) at hand. (Public policy will be influenced by trusted experts.)
Sharing proceeds from environmental impact fees to all people would end abject poverty and would improve the fluidity of the job market. Job loss due to changing economic climate or technological change would be less disruptive and less stressful.
"Let a thousand schools of thought contend, let a thousand flowers bloom".
Chairman Mao
"From each according to his ability to each according to his need"
Karl Marx
"I am the spirit that negates.
And rightly so, for all that comes to be
Deserves to perish wretchedly"
Goethe (from Faust)
19:45
9:30
Wilhelm Reich nailed it- religious sexual shame creates mass psychological pathology. Until we fix this and raise children without irrational body shame , all these other principles of mortality are moot points . You might say that we are secular now, but I believe sexual shame has simply been transfigured into body image shame, the shame has just taken on new forms. Matriarchal tribes (sex positive) had a lot less pathology. (Reich , Malinowski, study of Trobriands )
11:50
21:40
Is it just me, or Rick disturbingly resembles Grigori Rasputin?
5:00 “shoot em quick” fuck yeah... Appalachia and Texas are so much alike and I love you rick...
Putting “duke university “ before he speaks is dumb. They fired him and they suck.
mills does have an argument against suicide. the bridge jump...and his contract for slavery example
It is not just that negative and positive freedom are at odds with each other. Positive freedom is at odds with itself. Positive "freedoms" are to be provided by somebody who in the process cannot receive this very same positive "freedom" because he is ocupied in providing it.
John Stuart Mill was an imperialist though. Just as an example he supported British imperialism in India to help and "civilise" the "unfortunate Indian people" who he saw as "no better than animals."
He's just like Samantha Power - always finding some new liberal excuse to exploit a foreign peoples in the name of helping and liberating them.
Yeah, you are right. But I would empathize with him in the sense that in his view of the world, general happiness comes from the capacity of liberty and self-improvement. Something that Indian people, because of how their culture has always been (ultra-hierarchical and massively divided with tons of poor people) was impossible. Though I do not justify NOW imperialism and destroying other people's culture. (not to mention taking their land and their natural resources.) I do think to asking that out of some mid 1800 english guy is a bit too much. I would cut him some slack. Especially considering that what he wanted was general happiness. (even if it was by the wrong means.)
I agree with a lot of his philosophical ideas. I'm not so sure about his character though.
I feel people should have been smart enough in that time period or any time period to know that selfish imperialism helps nobody but the elites of the intervening country. It's just common sense that going into a foreign country with no real intention of helping others will not result in helping others.
The problem is that the voices of those people who are more honest don't even enter the discussion or the history books.
Take Bartolome de las Casas - one of the most despicable people in history, in my eyes at least. He is pathologically wired to give liberal precedence for imperialism the way Samantha Power does today. But the fact ppl from centuries ago to today are hard-wired to play this same game shows me that it's not just that people are misled by their time period. It's that those giving liberal precedence to foreign intervention are selectively favoured by imperialistic states to the point these people are like a specialized breed of people designed solely for that purpose.
The need for all these phony excuses over so many centuries and up to our present day shows its more about pathological liars and hypocrites being selected for because they serve the greed of the ruling classes than it is about people being confused about what would truly help foreigners.
Bartolome de las Casas and Samantha Power are smart enough to write volumes about the plight of others, world affairs, and how much others need to be "helped" through intervention, yet they are never ever smart enough to just oppose imperialism altogether and just write about that?
R.V. L. I must thank you. I have never heard of Bartolome de las Casas and Samantha Power and I did some research. You have a solid point, and it is true that most imperialist thinkers are also members or really hard supporters of the rulling class. Those thing in todays eyes really don't have an excuse. And today they continue so, that's that.
But at least the world is catching on and not allowing it so much anymore. Remember the Crisis in Syria and how the US wanted to send troops, but they were not allowed to? (though probably they are giving military aid anyway) So probably in the future (near or far) we'll see a decline in imperialistic actions. I hope at least.
Franco Bongiovanni Yes, agreed. I think this is finally an age where more honest people can spread the word about what's happening. Sadly, this is probably more due to technological progress than anything else. Without the internet, states and supporters of power would probably continue on with whatever they could get away with.
Syria is a good example. Samantha Power is doing precisely what de las Casas did which is painting a horrendous picture of life for the Syrians (or the Natives in de las Casas' case.) The suffering of these ppl is not untrue but they only do it to call for more intervention (even going as far as exploiting the Rwandan genocide.) And it's so evil the way ppl like that can create an image for themselves as a dissident and humanitarian.
A real dissident is someone like Noam Chomsky. He's one of the most honest intellectuals I can think of.
"Classical liberal" is the precursor to taday's "Conservative".
Wonder how many kids today pick up on the references to Shirley McClain, Jesse Helms, or Kojak; or his remarks about Ronald Reagan. I think it's in his talk about " Nietzsche and his Progeny" that Roderick calls Reagan an ineffectual president, but says he was also "popular for his own popularity", by which I think he means that Reagan's appeal to a broad swath of Voters was based on his grandfatherly image. Reagan's age helped, but so did his ironic, condescending tone, which he perfected in that series of radio talks he gave after finishing his terms as Governor of California, and before he was nominated as the Republican candidate for the presidency in the 1980 election. Reagan pulled in votes from both doctrinaire Republicans and formerly liberal Democrats who were turned off by Jimmy Carter's dismal Public Image, his perceived post-Viet Nam "defeatism", and his attempts to save the environment (a concern that was relatively new to the American public back then) by getting people to turn down their thermostats. It was a contrast made in heaven for the Republicans: Carter on TV, addressing the nation in his wool sweater, versus Reagan in his sharp-looking, well tailored suit, smiling that big Hollywood smile, with that kindly, paternal way of putting down his opponents with witty quips, some of which he may have even come up with on his own.
11:25 The State always has the power to interfere with out lives because most people hallucinate them to have that power.
It's like dominating over any group of people or even animals. They probably would have the power to take you out if they worked together but as long as they're not doing that you can intimidate them individually. Which might also be where legitimacy comes in, giving people a good reason to not work together to overthrow the state.
There was a rule. Male sadism. Moral philosophers who are entirely men engage in conversation that has its own blind spots. The Magus discussion provides a brilliant example of this. If you need another thick, real life example, see MAGA, USA, 2024.
Love Rick but the idea that freedom should be a positive thing is such wishful thinking… the best we should hope for is freedom from not freedom to. The only way to have freedom to is to interfere with someone else’s freedom from. In a wealthy technologically advanced society there is some possibility to give some people freedom ‘to’ things is somewhat possible without drastically reducing others freedom ‘from’ basically this wouldn’t even be a discussion if we didn’t find ourselves in the freest and most materially wealthy society ever. In any other society in history since agriculture the idea of having freedom ‘to’ do and have whatever you want would be ridiculous but at least the freedom ‘from’ coercion might have been at least considered a good thing even if it has never really been achieved
Miller Joseph Martinez Ruth White Helen
This guy does not understand a Kant given his introductory examples. Read Kant or think for yourself. I can only assume this guy thinks far too simply to understand Kant.
Maybe he Kant
QVC actual substantially lecture. Not some woke bs
Brown Mark Harris Thomas Miller David
Those damn conservatives and their crusade against social harm!
Yeah that certainly seemed to have switched in the current political landscape in the west.
Everything you could call a system is also an abstraction. So i have no idea what "an abstraction from a real system of oppression" is supposed to mean.
Edit: Ah! His incessant use of "real" betrays his materialism. I suppose Marxism tells him which concepts to consider real and which to consider an abstraction.
Isn't marxism paternalistic because it often assumes that the marxist analyst knows better what the interests of the oppressed are than these oppressed themselves?
anyone think Andrew Tate while watching....
Not bad. Just a little bit mediocre.
Why don't you illuminate us beyond Roderick's lecture by citing a few "above average..." "at best..." insights now that you've had 3 years to grow.
No comments
The PC virtue-signalling never gets old . . never . . nope . . not old at . . .all.
26:08
19:22