As a Sugrueist I find Professor Roderick to be an insufferable Communist. I wonder how he'd react to the Trump movement. Obviously I'm stating this in good humor. Cheers!
Wow! I KNOW HOW TO COMMENT NOW!! MANY REGRETS I DID NOT KNOW HOW FOR SEVERAL YEARS!! ❤ RIP Professor Rick Roderick. This one is great on Nietzsche. I love all his lectures.
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
This guy is so professional and knowledgeable and it is so refreshing. Unlike the pseudointellectuals of today, you can tell he has actually studied and read the philosophers he talks about.
he must have missed Marx' edit after the Paris commune where he realized the state is an always alienating system and therefore he called for the complete dissolution of the state. He did indeed realize that the same issues can occur in a state wherein the works hold the power as the state itself creates these antagonisms.
Its worth pointing out that for Marx, states don't exist on their own account. Their reason for being is to reinforce and protect the property relations that benefit a ruling class. The basic argument is that if you now have a majority of the population (i.e. the working classes) actively involved in the kind of decision-making that used to be reserved for a relatively small bureaucratic strata, the state as an alien force standing over society is reabsorbed _back_ into the society... and that very process entails the famous withering away of the state. That doesn't mean it's fated to happen, only that it _can_ work out that way. Obviously the Paris Commune and the Soviet Union didn't turn out that way, but the reasons for that lie outside anything to do with the broad claims made by the Marxist theory of the state.
Where did he write that? My crude idea of thus is that the State would wither away when there were no shortages to manage. The Government of my country exists by political manipulation of shortages - the favoured loyal voters are manipulated by pre election gifts and promises. This gives the State a huge incentive to maintain existence a less favoured group group deprived of "favours". Social esteem and respect of one group and disrespect of the other is used to reinforce the favouritism. And of course the political class themselves are beneficiaries of plenty. How would a proto communist State be prevented from following this route? I.e. engineering shortages and favours as social control rather than doing the harder work of securing a good life for everyone?
4:42 *Market economy becoming market society* “[T]he process of a world becoming bureaucratically more complex and intrusive at the level of the state is a world phenomena. It’s not localizable. The process of an economy becoming evermore diverse, commodifying ever more sections of our lives...” Michael Sandel (Harvard) makes this same point. That now everything is up for sale and it’s happened without us even realizing it. This has corrosive effects on civic life and has hastened our slide into a world of hyper-stratification where the rich increasingly live separate lives from the poor.
I believe he meant by never got a normal job as a professor, that he was a professor but he did not get the job normally, he did not follow the normal procedure towards doctorate und professorship. The details are there on wiki
He is instantiating the very thing he is talking about. Hence the political remarks. Ad-homonym remarks are necessary for who he is talking about and for himself. To present this material one needs to embody it as rick indeed does.
boray yes, this is from Cato Institute (American libertarian think tank in Washington D.C. funded by the Koch brothers fortune) written by John Samples (Ph.D. in political science Rutgers, author/advocate for limited government): “Ronald Reagan won the 1980 presidential election decisively. He beat incumbent president Jimmy Carter by 10 points in the popular vote. In the Electoral College, Reagan carried 24 states by more than 10 points, 14 of them by more than 20 points. Reagan had a mandate to pare back the federal government. [...] To accomplish that would have required a domestic revolution that overthrew the institutions and policies of the New Deal and the Great Society. Reagan and his successors did have some success at restraining the growth of the state. But they did not overturn the old order. [...] Reagan failed to radically reduce the size of government. [...] Reagan failed to radically cut back the federal establishment because American government is biased against big changes. [...] Social conservatives, practicing a politics informed by conservative Christianity, had become a larger part of the GOP base. Republican leaders responded to their new voters, first by impeaching Bill Clinton, and then by nominating George W. Bush, who won the presidency on a modified Christian evangelical platform, “compassionate conservatism.” Bush proposed an active and “caring” government prepared to spend and regulate without restraint. www.cato.org/policy-report/marchapril-2010/limiting-government-1980-2010
boray yeah Koch brothers (brother now..) are sick sick freaks.. advocating to exterminate the social contract in the name of “civic liberty and free markets”... amazing. Sanders has a nice short exposé on them: www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers
to see the charming charismatic Rick here quote charming charismatic Nietzsche quoting the stodgy old Aquinas...something about that struck my funnybone:) 25:26
umut barat Become an overman. Find fellow "companions" that share the same quench for thirst you do, and make your own legend for the brief time you are here. Once you break beyond the herd, it become a bit less crowded. More time to think!
I wouldn't call it overcoming. I see it more as a starting point I know that nothing has any inherent meaning or value but I can at least feel fulfilled by achieving my small self set goals
But Russell and Whitehead failed to prove after hundreds of writing, that 1+1= 2. Wittgenstein just says (more or less we simply decide). Which is de facto "common sense"...
Enjoying the lectures immensely, yet the philosophers at the BondInstitute net objects to the point at 25:00: the idea that hate and love are opposites. These are incommensurable. Love is measured against [non]Love, Hate against [non]Hate, and so on... as per the philosophy of measurement outlined in our Harmonic Matrix Theory.
because rich people pay lots to have editorial control over the sections they want (see clinton campaign) - so knowledge is power or power dictates knowledge I guess.
You don't run wikipedia, wikipedia does. You're not the gatekeeper. If you don't believe me, look up the well known photographer named David Slater. Specifically look him up on wikipedia. There is a big difference between the two. It's a dark story aboutt immoral and arrogant gatekeepers abusing their power. In this case, access to the knowledge in the internet age is the power. The knowledge is now not knowledge of say just information but how that information is put forth. If you don't know the proper "computer code knowledge" you will be powerless to stop those that do. Hopefully you have those in power that do, that protect you.
Knowledge is power which people refuse to work for because their attention spans have been reduced to a rubble. 10-20 years ago more kids have read books than they have now
I would love to read whatever evidence he had about reducing the state and economic depression, as I believe now we need a radically free market instead of one regulated by government, I'd like to know what revelations he had, Chomsky also recognizes that we live in a not actual capitalist system, but I've not heard him talk wether he thinks that is good or bad, as an anarcho-syndicalist he probably thinks it's good, I could be wrong but I really want that evidence.
Then you my friend know little to nothing about economics and furthermore you appear to be completely clueless of the fact that our economy is less regulated now than it ever was, even back during the "golden age" of the 50's and 60's. And it was partly because of wall street and banking deregulation under Clinton and Bush that directly led to the 08 melt-down.
i like rick but he misunderstands marxism. in a communist society, assuming the bourgeois line is being struggled against, the workers would control the state. how would the state exploit them if they controlled it? the state is simply an apparatus of class power. under communism it would be used to uphold proletarian values.
Because when put in practice communism simply flips the class system and inevitably the proletariat in control just morph in to a new kind of centralized power, exploiting those below them in similar ways to other political systems.
"The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong-into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax." -Friedrich Engels, Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State "PERROT: And there’s no point for the prisoners in taking over the central tower? FOUCAULT: Oh yes, provided that isn’t the final purpose of the operation. Do you think it would be much better to have the prisoners operating the Panoptic apparatus and sitting in the central tower, instead of the guards?" -Michel Foucault, The Eye of Power
Well he implies how marxism played out in the real world. As soon as communism was established, the workers were replaced by the political office holders that quickly stole it from them. If the workers truly never list their power then that would be a different story but that hasn't happened yet. Not in USSR PRC or Cuba. Why that is I'd like to know and so would every marxist. Rick doesn't explain why it failed just that it is accepted knowledge to his academic audience
Anyone else notice the similarities of the lectures between this and Jordan Peterson's? They definitely have their differences but the topics are similar
Rick's "systems of power" (political terminology) and Jordan's "dominance hierarchies" (biological) are two sides of the same topic. I just saw JP's talk hosted by Jerry Falwell Jnr, & remembered Rick's mention of J.Falwell Snr [22:20] ruclips.net/video/aDepoPl1oEM/видео.html
This was decades ago. It’s actually useful because it illustrates the current events in which he lived so we can contrast the ideas to the times of today which are way worse in most ways. Also him sharing his personal insights, acknowledges his bias & personal point of view we can take from & contrast with our own perspective. I think it’s cute and correct how he delivers his lectures.
![Rick Roderick on Hegel and Modern Life [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2MsNyR-epBM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Rick Roderick on Hegel and Modern Life [full length]](/img/tr.png)
![Rick Roderick on Kierkegaard and the Contemporary Spirit [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AILpwUTPRGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Rick Roderick on Nietzsche and the Will to Power [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZI9asjQnTIM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Rick Roderick on Nietzsche on Truth & Lie [full length]](/img/1.gif)
I'm obsessed with this guy now
I agree this dude is amazing
Same
As a Sugrueist I find Professor Roderick to be an insufferable Communist. I wonder how he'd react to the Trump movement. Obviously I'm stating this in good humor. Cheers!
Obsesssed 🎉
I want to be a professor and be exactly like Rick. Love you man ❤
This guy is the real deal
"the lower u get in the educational scale the more honest it gets"
L
Wow! I KNOW HOW TO COMMENT NOW!! MANY REGRETS I DID NOT KNOW HOW FOR SEVERAL YEARS!!
❤ RIP Professor Rick Roderick. This one is great on Nietzsche.
I love all his lectures.
17:45 It's not all relative. "...there are conditions within which evaluations take place that themselves require analysis."
I want to thank you so much for these lectures, he is wonderful.
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
Segrue
An excellent watch.
This guy is so professional and knowledgeable and it is so refreshing. Unlike the pseudointellectuals of today, you can tell he has actually studied and read the philosophers he talks about.
he must have missed Marx' edit after the Paris commune where he realized the state is an always alienating system and therefore he called for the complete dissolution of the state. He did indeed realize that the same issues can occur in a state wherein the works hold the power as the state itself creates these antagonisms.
yeah i was going to say the same, that’s a pretty big thing to leave out even though I guess it was only present in his later work, still vital though
Its worth pointing out that for Marx, states don't exist on their own account. Their reason for being is to reinforce and protect the property relations that benefit a ruling class. The basic argument is that if you now have a majority of the population (i.e. the working classes) actively involved in the kind of decision-making that used to be reserved for a relatively small bureaucratic strata, the state as an alien force standing over society is reabsorbed _back_ into the society... and that very process entails the famous withering away of the state.
That doesn't mean it's fated to happen, only that it _can_ work out that way. Obviously the Paris Commune and the Soviet Union didn't turn out that way, but the reasons for that lie outside anything to do with the broad claims made by the Marxist theory of the state.
Where did he write that? My crude idea of thus is that the State would wither away when there were no shortages to manage. The Government of my country exists by political manipulation of shortages - the favoured loyal voters are manipulated by pre election gifts and promises. This gives the State a huge incentive to maintain existence a less favoured group group deprived of "favours". Social esteem and respect of one group and disrespect of the other is used to reinforce the favouritism. And of course the political class themselves are beneficiaries of plenty. How would a proto communist State be prevented from following this route? I.e. engineering shortages and favours as social control rather than doing the harder work of securing a good life for everyone?
4:54 *commodification of the Sunday stroll* ..and now malls have been usurped by amazon prime.
I enjoyed your lecture thanks for sharing.
I enjoyed your wife; thanks for sharing.
@@eorobinson3 I enjoyed your mom; thanks for sharing.
Philosophy without Nietzsche is pissing into the wind.
refreshing to listen to, especially after hearing Zizek.
Listening to an open drain is refreshing after hearing zizek
@@dx7tnt Just curious: is Zizek, in your view, a dirty Marxist, or a dirty pseudo-Marxist?
Just dirty.
TheGerogero he’s a card carrying Hegelian
Pyramid of Control A Young Hegelian!? Or a Right Hegelian?! 😨
4:42 *Market economy becoming market society* “[T]he process of a world becoming bureaucratically more complex and intrusive at the level of the state is a world phenomena. It’s not localizable. The process of an economy becoming evermore diverse, commodifying ever more sections of our lives...”
Michael Sandel (Harvard) makes this same point. That now everything is up for sale and it’s happened without us even realizing it. This has corrosive effects on civic life and has hastened our slide into a world of hyper-stratification where the rich increasingly live separate lives from the poor.
This is basically David Harvey's take on neoliberalism.
Focault also connects 'power and knowledge'. Logically challengeable but F. and somewhat N. are working with a wide brush.
12:40 Nietzsche was a professor of philology at Basel between 1869-1878...
I believe he meant by never got a normal job as a professor, that he was a professor but he did not get the job normally, he did not follow the normal procedure towards doctorate und professorship. The details are there on wiki
He is instantiating the very thing he is talking about. Hence the political remarks. Ad-homonym remarks are necessary for who he is talking about and for himself. To present this material one needs to embody it as rick indeed does.
4:34 “President Reagan came into office promising to shrink the size of the state-as you may know, as a matter of fact, it’s larger than ever.”
boray yes, this is from Cato Institute (American libertarian think tank in Washington D.C. funded by the Koch brothers fortune) written by John Samples (Ph.D. in political science Rutgers, author/advocate for limited government):
“Ronald Reagan won the 1980 presidential election decisively. He beat incumbent president Jimmy Carter by 10 points in the popular vote. In the Electoral College, Reagan carried 24 states by more than 10 points, 14 of them by more than 20 points. Reagan had a mandate to pare back the federal government. [...] To accomplish that would have required a domestic revolution that overthrew the institutions and policies of the New Deal and the Great Society. Reagan and his successors did have some success at restraining the growth of the state. But they did not overturn the old order. [...] Reagan failed to radically reduce the size of government. [...] Reagan failed to radically cut back the federal establishment because American government is biased against big changes. [...] Social conservatives, practicing a politics informed by conservative Christianity, had become a larger part of the GOP base. Republican leaders responded to their new voters, first by impeaching Bill Clinton, and then by nominating George W. Bush, who won the presidency on a modified Christian evangelical platform, “compassionate conservatism.” Bush proposed an active and “caring” government prepared to spend and regulate without restraint.
www.cato.org/policy-report/marchapril-2010/limiting-government-1980-2010
boray yeah Koch brothers (brother now..) are sick sick freaks.. advocating to exterminate the social contract in the name of “civic liberty and free markets”... amazing. Sanders has a nice short exposé on them:
www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers
to see the charming charismatic Rick here quote charming charismatic Nietzsche quoting the stodgy old Aquinas...something about that struck my funnybone:) 25:26
When he says George bush is he saying jr or senior? Or does it not matter really?
Never mind, figured it out
West Texas
Amazing
Did you watch the video?
I did
THANK THE GODS FOR TO PEL FOR UPLOAD.
also he went off on dis one lol
gotta say, I do like this Ancient Greek version of virtue
Ancient Greece was in many ways much more socially aware.
How can we overcome Nihilism? Or is overcoming nihilism not at all possible?
umut barat Become an overman. Find fellow "companions" that share the same quench for thirst you do, and make your own legend for the brief time you are here. Once you break beyond the herd, it become a bit less crowded. More time to think!
It’s not clear
follow your own virtues-the individualization Jung continued (A mixture of existentialism builded from stoicism)
Overcoming suicide takes up enough time to not worry about dealing with nihilism. :)
I wouldn't call it overcoming. I see it more as a starting point
I know that nothing has any inherent meaning or value but I can at least feel fulfilled by achieving my small self set goals
But Russell and Whitehead failed to prove after hundreds of writing, that 1+1= 2. Wittgenstein just says (more or less we simply decide). Which is de facto "common sense"...
This guy looks like a Hollywood actor.
Enjoying the lectures immensely, yet the philosophers at the BondInstitute net objects to the point at 25:00: the idea that hate and love are opposites. These are incommensurable. Love is measured against [non]Love, Hate against [non]Hate, and so on... as per the philosophy of measurement outlined in our Harmonic Matrix Theory.
Seems they are doing some productive work at the Bond Institute...
I heard hate is not the opposite of love but indifference.
At 10:00 , he foreshadows on Woke culture.
if knowledge is power - why is wikipedia free ?
Amazology because power should be for with the people.
because rich people pay lots to have editorial control over the sections they want (see clinton campaign) - so knowledge is power or power dictates knowledge I guess.
You don't run wikipedia, wikipedia does. You're not the gatekeeper. If you don't believe me, look up the well known photographer named David Slater. Specifically look him up on wikipedia. There is a big difference between the two. It's a dark story aboutt immoral and arrogant gatekeepers abusing their power. In this case, access to the knowledge in the internet age is the power. The knowledge is now not knowledge of say just information but how that information is put forth. If you don't know the proper "computer code knowledge" you will be powerless to stop those that do. Hopefully you have those in power that do, that protect you.
Knowledge is power which people refuse to work for because their attention spans have been reduced to a rubble. 10-20 years ago more kids have read books than they have now
That's exactly the reason that it is free.
amazing lecture, what a loss
Engagement.
Rick Roderick.
"Coinages that are not to be found in the English language"
42:36 incredibly baste
If anyone deserved heaven it was Rick ✌🏼🤍
i never met a man i didnt like - well he never met george bush LOLOLOL
This is a very talkable.. subject.. maybe subjects
36:16 reminds me somewhat of the following from Bill Hicks:
ruclips.net/video/KbO0f9uaWZE/видео.html
I too prima facie
I would love to read whatever evidence he had about reducing the state and economic depression, as I believe now we need a radically free market instead of one regulated by government, I'd like to know what revelations he had, Chomsky also recognizes that we live in a not actual capitalist system, but I've not heard him talk wether he thinks that is good or bad, as an anarcho-syndicalist he probably thinks it's good, I could be wrong but I really want that evidence.
Now that I've finished this lecture, this guy was great! Very good lecture!
Then you my friend know little to nothing about economics and furthermore you appear to be completely clueless of the fact that our economy is less regulated now than it ever was, even back during the "golden age" of the 50's and 60's. And it was partly because of wall street and banking deregulation under Clinton and Bush that directly led to the 08 melt-down.
what the hell accent does he have
West texan
Based and redpilled
White Gary Walker Anthony Miller Kenneth
i like rick but he misunderstands marxism. in a communist society, assuming the bourgeois line is being struggled against, the workers would control the state. how would the state exploit them if they controlled it? the state is simply an apparatus of class power. under communism it would be used to uphold proletarian values.
Because when put in practice communism simply flips the class system and inevitably the proletariat in control just morph in to a new kind of centralized power, exploiting those below them in similar ways to other political systems.
The whole "Worker's State" things is one of the biggest splits in leftwing thinking.
Cheifly; it divides leftwing anarchists from state socialists.
"The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong-into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax."
-Friedrich Engels, Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State
"PERROT: And there’s no point for the prisoners in taking over the central tower?
FOUCAULT: Oh yes, provided that isn’t the final purpose of the operation. Do you think it would be much better to have the prisoners operating the Panoptic apparatus and sitting in the central tower, instead of the guards?"
-Michel Foucault, The Eye of Power
You're blinded by abstraction. Try to think of things more concretely and you'll understand
Well he implies how marxism played out in the real world. As soon as communism was established, the workers were replaced by the political office holders that quickly stole it from them. If the workers truly never list their power then that would be a different story but that hasn't happened yet. Not in USSR PRC or Cuba. Why that is I'd like to know and so would every marxist. Rick doesn't explain why it failed just that it is accepted knowledge to his academic audience
Anyone else notice the similarities of the lectures between this and Jordan Peterson's? They definitely have their differences but the topics are similar
Rick's "systems of power" (political terminology) and Jordan's "dominance hierarchies" (biological) are two sides of the same topic. I just saw JP's talk hosted by Jerry Falwell Jnr, & remembered Rick's mention of J.Falwell Snr [22:20] ruclips.net/video/aDepoPl1oEM/видео.html
This guy actually knows his philosophy. JBP really doesn't, He should stick with psychology.
They're literally nothing alike.
Not at all. To begin, Roderick actually seems to have read the material.
@@SarahCrookallExactly.
😂 what do America & South Africa have in common in terms of crime? 😂
This is not about Nietzsche is about Marx. The title is wrong.
Is you should learn syntax, is. English first, dubious critique later. You're out in front of your skis mate!
Lol Roderick lectures. Generally I find he wanders a lot, but this one isn’t bad. He talks a lot about the GOM and Nietzschean ideas.
Too political and full of himself.
This was decades ago. It’s actually useful because it illustrates the current events in which he lived so we can contrast the ideas to the times of today which are way worse in most ways. Also him sharing his personal insights, acknowledges his bias & personal point of view we can take from & contrast with our own perspective. I think it’s cute and correct how he delivers his lectures.
@@bryanutility9609 yes he is a hundred percent entertaining.
It is disappointing to hear how little philosophers know about economics.
It's a good thing too. Most of it is rubbish anyway. Economics that is.
biased political statements..
Political statements I don't agree with and therefore I call them biased*
The dishonest thing would be to maintain a pretense of objectivity.