Yes it was a public high-school. No it was not mandatory. However, education is a choice either way. No one is forced to go to school, and especially not high-school. By that time, we all have the individual choice to drop out after a certain period of time. Whether a course is "Mandatory," or not isn't why a kid loses his interest in education. Education is already beautiful. If someone decides for themselves to believe otherwise, it's their own fault. Any excuse otherwise, like blaming the institution, blaming parents, blaming past failures, well, that's just the efforts of the individual to try to make up for his perceived mistakes in life. In my opinion, that person shouldn't be so hard on themselves. Education isn't the most important thing in the world.
it is mandatory for teens to attend school for the first two years of high school.............in most schools what are the students taught about the socio-political context of the world they are about to enter after graduation?............in the four years of high school what job skill do most students learn?
Well, if those kids drop out only after two years, whatever they learned, probably won't have any use in the world after graduation. If they do go beyond the two years, and actually WANT to learn, then, I'm sure, that it doesn't matter what they are taught about that unless, they choose to have a career that revolves around it. Also, you are required to take a political course in college. So, going to college, might help people out
@Ryan Fox I didn't read you whole comment, but I am not totally against slavery, but to not understand me wrong I am against racism... It is a good to punch people better than whole life prison ... Just deal with them as human
So interesting that Locke and Hobbes both witnessed the execution of Charles I, ultimately coming to sometimes very different conclusions because of it. One of my favorite series, please keep up the great work!
@@MsColl90 You are holding him accountable by the standards of today, you shouldn't do that. It's one of the biggest mistakes we could do when we are learning history. I recommend you to read some of the Locke's work, and you won't say 'fuck that guy'.
John Locke Fun Fact: Locke was going to become a doctor, till he met Earl of Shaftsburry (very political figure). What to do about differing religious views? Toleration - People CAN'T (lacking of ability) determine which is a true religious standpoint. - Even if you could, no one can make (by violence) you genuinely believe something. - Religious uniformity leads to more social chaos, than allowing diversity, Who should rule the country? -God gives that authority. - The rule must make people comfortable in society - The ruler has to respect everyone's freedom and property. Beyond that the people have the right to overthrow their rulers. How should we educate our children? - People's views are shaped by their experiences, as they are blank slates when they are born. Therefore, educate them right, and early. - They should be taught practical things such as ethics, business, psychology, science, etc. Important definition: State of nature, when we have all rights before joining society. (as we consent to give up some rights to live in society)
Forced religious uniformity creates a horrid environment for society, but if it comes about naturally it’s as good or bad as the religion that dominates is.
Who should rule the country? The authority gets the consent to rule from the people. Their duty is to protect the natural rights of the people, that is, the right to life, liberty and property.
Great man. Locke is basicaly the father of the american constitution. A man that should be remembered for everyone that values the freedom of the individuals.
Adam Smith, Lincoln, and Marx had more to do with the final versions of the American constitution. Locke was just someone who had ideas that resonated throughout the constitution.
@@goblinisac5759 nope. The moral philosophy behind marxs work has lead to many advancements in workers rights, workers conditions, and keeping capitalism in check.
@@OrsinoNation i do believe school should prepare you to the world and not teach you actual skills. those skills should be obtained by practicing and maybe going to college
well I disagree with his idea that music and poetry aren't important because they very much are. But generally his idea on education I think he is correct.
You think so? I'd say music and poetry are extremely valuable assets. There are those (and many) who don't find the time or even get the chance to indulge in the making of music outside of school due to their living situation - should they not to be allowed to learn?
John Locke has done so much for us, it's weird to think one man's thoughts could change the course of history for the entirety of Western civilization.
Weird, I saw this searching for an early TSOL performance, and also weird this is like a lecture of things tied to a detailed organization, of which is personified as the resentful parent that was the cause of childish rebellion exhibited to the garbage I listen to called Punk Rock, which I think is just Rock. Nevermind.
Music is hardly a useless thing to learn in school. The parts of the brain that are stimulated and grown by studying music are related to mathematics and other important things.
as always.. thank you. every time i learn i now at the age of 38.. find my self more accepting of infomation. and enjoy the fact that there have been so meany wise humans before me. history is truly the new sat-nav of the mind. ta rolfo
@@andrewcollingridge9429 If we limit our freedom by the maxim of that which does not harm it, government will turn paternalistic very fast and the gradual decay of liberty will be exacerbated. We seem to have forgotten that freedom and liberty do not come to us as a given. There are prices every generation pays for them, and so long as we recognize true liberty as being the universal superior element, we will continue to make such sacrifices. The words of Franklin make my case for me: "He who is willing to give up his freedom to purchase a temporary security deserves neither freedom nor security."
As L.W. was want to say 'Wonderful, Wonderful, Simply Wonderful.' Thank you. I will use this in my section on Political Philosophy. It sums up so much in so little time.
Dear John Locke, Thank you for reminding us of our right to Life, Liberty, and Property for these rights are given to all once conceived, and are God's gift to us all. Love from The Voluntaryist Alliance
Its interesting... and fitting... that much of this video features Henry VIII. Much of modern political philosophy, arguably, could be traced (indirectly... ish) to Henry VIII. As mentioned, much of political philosophy at the time was centered around the divine right of kings. Political power was derived from, and dependent on, God. A person ruled because God allowed it. Then Henry VIII came along. As the song goes, Henry VIII had a lot of wives, but, for the purposes of this story, the only one that actually matters is his first wife, Catherine of Aaragon. Henry wanted an heir. Catherine did not produce one, so in Henry's 30s he decided to look for a new spouse. At the time, England was Catholic, so he requested from the Pope permission to annul his marriage. Divorce and annulment were not seen as valid by Catholic religious law, so it was denied. Long story, short... Henry essentially came to the conclusion that the Pope was not the King; HE was the King and, if the Pope wasn't going to approve it, then Henry was going to make his own church where it was allowed. End of the day, in 1534, Henry VIII created the Church of England (Anglican) separate from the Church of Rome, and they mutually excommunicated each other. All so he could divorce his wife. The ramifications of that action, however, were huge... especially in political philosophy. The thought went, if the power of the King was at the pleasure of God... and the king just rejected God... and nothing happened... then what does that mean? Obviously, the rational answer is that power doesn't derive from God. So, if it doesn't derive from God, then where does political power come from? That act, along with various revolutions at the time, caused an renaissance in political philosophy in the late 16th and early 17th century that examined the sources of power and rights, and lead to the development of schools of thought like Hobbes's, Locke's, and Rousseau's Social Contract Theories. It's fascinating stuff.
Love it. I'm just now getting into it. Can't believe I've been interested in philosphy and history for over 10 years since highschool and all while not grasping the enlightenment. It was the transitioning period that brought europe out of the dark ages. It set the stage for the modern world.
I have this for my exam in a week, I'm watching all your videos on political theory and it's much more interesting than reading it for 5th time. Thanks a bunch!
Paul Llama It wasn't just the fact of taxation, repeatedly the Colonies asked for representation in Parliament, and were denied. The excessive taxation _without_ representation was the prime motivating factor. That and the forced quartering of Red Coats was the last straw.
+Mustafa Kulle But, would one argue that Orwell is in the category of philosopher? Personally, I see Orwell as a really astute social/political commentator and novelist. Like a John Steinbeck type of thinker or writer. My ideas are based off of these pieces I have read from Orwell: 1984, Animal Farm, Road to Wigan Pier, Down and Out in Paris and London, Essays "Shooting an Elephant," "Charles Dickens," "Politics and the English Language," and "Why I Write".
Hereticalable I don't think we should discard Orwell as a relic of the past. Firstly, books like Animal Farm are a good reminder of Stalinism and should be taken as a cautionary tale, regardless of how likely it is in the future. Humanity is just too good at forgetting its own mistakes.Secondly, one could argue that we are living the reality of 1984, in a way, today, where political correctness has invaded logical discourse and our words and opinions are constantly policed. You are right that we are on the cusp of the realities of Brave New World, but that in no way discredits Orwell's commentary.
0.0 I can get all of the works of John Locke mentioned in this video, plus "The Fundamental Constitutions Of Carolina" for about $1.00 on Kindle. 7 works of one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers for $1.00. I guess I'll be enjoying some interesting reading on my plane ride.
Thank you so much! Your videos help me to study political science. In Ukraine where I study International law there aren't many books that can explain political theories as simply, as thoroughly and fun as you guys do!
Lockes religious tolerance act is not so tolerant as you describe it. There was a prohibition of Catholicism and many other Christian branches because they were considered faithful to a foreign king ( the Pope ) and not the King of England.
+Samuel Palomera He was tolerant or their religious views but not their divided loyalties, and he had good reason to feel that way. When the Church of England broke away from the Catholic Church, the pope helped support an invasion to other throw the king. Also, there were papal states that the Catholic Church governed directly.
There was an exemption for Catholics due to there loyalties to Rome, and for Atheist as they had no foundation for there promises. At the time it was meant to be a practical and utilitarian approach to persecution.
his ideology is great in some ways but also greatly mislead. Its self contradictory in nature in many ways. Don't idealize philosophers. You can benefit most from studying philosophy by taking a skeptical viewpoint and learning to identify the good aspects and flaws within philosophy. No philosophy is without flaws. Including locke's.
Es quizás mi filósofo favorito, es un crack. Había leído unas cuantas páginas, pero me encontré una un léxico demasiado elevado para mi jejeje. Por cierto claramente entiendo y veo las bases de la Psicología especialmente la educacional.
I just saw a children’s cartoon where John Locke is teaching kids the difference between needs and rights on IG. The comment section screamed propaganda having no idea that they were lashing out at the father of liberalism.
Please School of Life, I am begging: Make a video on Edmund Burke and the issue of social leveling. It is the only backing I have found towards elitist ideals that strikes me as logical and I am fascinated by it. Thumps up my comment please!
How do you think the philosophy of John Locke and Edmund Burke can be applied to Doug Wilson and his inability to build a cup winning team? Personally, I think DW is not that great of a GM and Nabokhov deserved better treatment.
Im 30 and just on a whim decided to read Of Enthusiasm. Ive never read more clear and sound explications of mathematical philosophy(axiomatic logic as the foundation for pure mathematics) and ethics ive ever read. It made me cry.
Thank you so much! It helped me a lot to understand Locke’s thoughts. :) I’m using this video for my final exam from social sciences so this is lifesaving. He was a really cool guy though.
what a fantastic short rendition of Lock. I, like most people new the name of Lock and probably heard high brow philosophy make reference to Lock. I neverstood what the man was about, until I tripped over this. The readers voice is so easy to listen to. thank you for making this available. Top man
Like the idea that "a state of nature" would be peaceful, here Hobbes is much closer. No "primitive" societies (about as close to "a state of nature we can observe) have ever been particularly peaceful or existing in a pleasant state. Or the idea that languages, art and music are not useful for children's education. Creativity and innovation doesn't stem from thinking in a straight line. Or for that matter the over-emphasis on early childhood as a foundation for our personality, as if our personality doesn't constantly evolve, and can change at any age, not just early childhood. In general I'm very much in favor of many of Locke's ideas, but as with any revolutionary ideas, they often become a little too sharp around the edges... life is evolution, not revolution.
+Magnus Nygaard No primitive society ever lived without a ruler. As far as humankind is concerned, there has always been a ruler of a pack, who as it turned out, got the first bite of the hunt. No such ruler waits for their turn to power. They see vulnerability, and then take their opportunity. Locke's argument is about the OVERWHELMING majority of human population in history, who have want to be left alone. The peaceful live and die, while the loud and violent get their name in history.
+Magnus Nygaard Hello Magnus, I believe we have crossed paths before. I saw your comment here just after I left my own and will repeat it here, because I believe you'd like to see it: "It is because of him (Locke) that we believe that governments should not tyrannise their subjects, that we try so hard to give our children good childhoods" Its a shame he didn't think this applied to Slaves, Native Americans and the children of the poorhouses - none of whose individual (liberal) rights he supported. He even argued that beggars be forced to wear badges to identify them on the streets, not unlike how the Nazis would later identify the Jews. Locke may have done a lot of good, but this myopic, saccharine sweet viewpoint doesn't describe anybody who has studied him. And it doesn't do any justice in educating your audience either. I'm disappointed."
I don't know how I got to this corner of RUclips, but you made me fall in love with John Locke in less than ten minutes. Well done. What a brilliant man, clearly far ahead of his time. Thanks for introducing me to a historical figure I hadn't heard of before.
It’s because of him that the west has learned of religious tolerance but not acceptance. India for centuries has known this and thrived on tolerance and acceptance!
Could you do an episode on being second best (or anything less than first)? I find that media today has so much hype over being "the very best", but there is often no sympathy to those who came in second. The phrase second is the first loser is proof of that, as well as the commercial for the Pokemon tournament. There are many other examples like Karate Kid and many other films.
Yeah, though his narrative was fairly well done, he exposed his left-wing Marxist idiocy when he presented a picture of President Trump when discussing the overthrow of tyrants. Like all leftists, they believe they are smarter than everyone else. The Dunning-Kruger effect. "Why stupid people think they are smart."
Desert Sand yes we all learn English at school but I don't understand all the words, it would be better in french haha but any way I learn english and history in the same time! (sorry if there are some mistakes)
Everything was fine until he spoke of how music and poetry are 'useless' and science, ethics, business and psychology being 'useful'. What is 'useful' or 'useless' is completely subjective. I believe no one has the right to say to another what he should educate himself on, what he should spend his time on. I had science classes, and I forgot almost everything about it, and I have found no use out of it. I can safely say that what has mould my open-mindedness and my view on the world is art. Videogames, music, movies, litterature, poetry and philosophy were the things that brought me to be a more empathetic person for I have travel in many persons's minds or lives (fictional persons or not). People that don't have the same ideas as I have, the same things that I love, the same values, the same sense of morality, Art as brought me to understand them and to take their sides. And I do not say that science is useless, I say that science is no use for me, because it's not what interests me the most, I prefer other things than science. My point is: we should educate ourselves on the things that we love, we should not educate ourselves on the things that another loves. I believe that by realizing the things that we love and embrace them, and exploit them, and decant them, we can reach many many other great things, for example: through videogames, I discovered a passion for music at the age of 6, through videogames, I discovered a passion for litterature for I had realized that I loved stories, through litterature, I discovered a passion for poetry, philosophy and, thanks to philosophy, i'm starting to be very fond of politics. What is of use is what we love, and, so, the latter will determine the school of life, that is: the school that pushes us to decant the things that makes us enjoy life, that makes us even more eager to pursue it.
perhaps it would have been that side education that Locke talked about that would have helped you understand that humans are not infallible. you watched the entire video where the author explains how this man changed the course of our history, and you chose to focus your attention on the last negative piece of the video. Take this as a self evident truth: NO one is perfect. , but it was Locke that gave us the idea of unalienable rights ( life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness ) and thus you, me, and everybody else is entitled to their own opinions...
I admit that my comment lacks objectivity and merely adresses one of the many ideas described, and because of that, it would be easy to think that I haven't paid equal attention to his other ideas, but that's not the case and that's no reason to say that I think everyone is infallible or perfect. I never, because of that one idea on education, considered the rest of Locke's ideas as trash, you just put those words in my mouth. And yes, no one is perfect, and, yes, everyone have their own opinions, but is it a reason to do or say nothing? No, obviously. I am sorry if I am somewhat rude to you but I fail to see the point of your comment and I have never done, in spite of what my comment makes you think, the things you've said.
Agree. He was right about eveything else, but poetry and music teach sensibility, besides other things and learning other language teaches you toleration towards other cultures.
+Steven Hawking I personally loathe the brand of objectivism tied to Ayn Rand, but her writing is very interesting. It is very selfish and indifferent to others
snap peas Selfishness is a virtue. What inclines a man to give away what is his, if not society's greed? The ultimate man is he who takes what's his and never forgets that it is.
Steven Hawking Virtuous value of a trait is subjective. Selfishness is only as much as a virtue as selflessness. Selfishness is a virtue because you assign value to it. In the words of Arthur Schopenhauer, compassion is the basis of morality. A man can give away his because of society's greed, but he can also give away his out of compassion and altruism. You have no objective way of deciding who the "ultimate" man is, or what he may be like. The idea of the ultimate man being one "who takes what's his and never forgets that it is" is just as delusional as thinking that there is a heaven or hell. You only conjure up and stick to that philosophy because it makes you subjectively feel superior. It is simply a philosophy that justifies your hedonistic inclinations, parasitism, and predation. It is ego masturbation and nothing more.
snap peas Your misunderstanding of Objectivism is why you are contemptuous of it. "He can also give away his out of compassion and altruism," this is in direct pursuit of his own happiness. If it does not make a man happier to help others, he would not do it. The man sees suffering and attempts to help, because he is only human. If the man were presented with a situation in which his own well being were in danger and he knew that that was the case, he would only go against his direct self-interest if he knew or thought it were in-directly in his self-interest, for example, two army buddies are waiting behind cover and a grenade lands at their feet. One of the men lays on the grenade and screams, "run!" and takes the blast and his own life in the process. He would only do this if he were at the very least acquainted with the other man. He would not jump on a grenade for a man he dislikes or is indifferent to. He's not actually thinking of the other man, only his selfish opinion of the man. Another reason this man might want to jump on the grenade is that he wishes to heighten the worlds acknowledgement of himself, even if he doesn't get to reap the benefits of his story. The moral of this story is that nobody does anything without some type of selfishness, regardless of intent, and that if they used reason and thought of themselves before others, no one would have to worry of other's well being. That's not to say we cannot have friends (whose purpose is mutual benefit, ie: happiness for happiness, supply for money, money for the transportation of supply etc.) and worry about them when they are sick, hurt etc. but to always work for yourself and only others whom truly benefit you, and that if one has the ability to act in his self-interest and doesn't, he doesn't deserve anyone's help in the first place. One who takes what's his and never forgets that it is is the ultimate man because all he does is produce; everything he does for himself ultimately benefits society the same - he sells what he produces and gives people what they want, for what he wants. I need to go to sleep. If you have any questions I would be proud to help convince you of Objectivism. Also, next time don't use something like "hedonistic inclinations" against a man who realizes that happiness is the ultimate end in and of itself. Joy is not sin; it is the opposite. Also, how dare you call me parasitic and predatory, that is the exact opposite of Objectivist ideology.
Steven Hawking I live in Los Angeles. I have walked through Skid Row. I have seen the excess of the Downtown shopping centers. I once spoke with a homeless man and his autistic child about his struggle in finding a shelter that respected his child. In short, I have a bias. As long as these things exist, I can never, and will never, accept Objectivism as the pinnacle of philosophy. I only see it as one piece of the human story at best. It is the same problem I have with a meritocracy. It simply fails to acknowledge the hostility of probability. You accused society as greedy in taking what is rightfully someone else's. That to me seems like a conflation between need and greed. Men like Emile Durkheim realized that capitalism brings about its own set of problems, with suicide being the tip of the iceberg of psychological stress. Men like Theodor Adorno noticed that capitalism prefers to keep us consuming. The problem with objectivism in my not-so-humble opinion is that there is conflation between happiness and comfort. I will be happy running 10 miles in the rain, but I will be comfortable doing the opposite, sitting on the couch with some tea and cookies. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think that people as a whole, left to their own devices, have the capacity to cope with the indifference of the universe and stop naturally-occurring psychopathy from taking the reigns of society
Interesting, I wonder why Locke could not see the link between self-expression (music, poetry) and psychology? I agree that dead languages should not be compulsory, thankfully they aren't any more.
We should be taught how to be creative and think critically and we should be allow to learn that which interests us and how to use the tools available to us to achieve our goals and pursue our interests. Don't make the square peg fit into a round hole.
8:05 So even the great John Locke is not without flaws. Music, poetry and literature is as important as science, maths, law or any other discipline if not more.
"as important" Latin, greek, music and poetry. Tell me how those are on the same level of importance as SCIENCE, MATH, LAW and PHILOSOPHY. When is the last time you needed to speak fluent latin in your daily life compared to using your understanding of law to pay your taxes, manage your finance, etc.
@@playfulattire8819 I think that is the he is trying to make. No human is without flaw. It is highly likely we should remember the great things someone has to offer as information and learn from their flaws.
Kelly Rowland Coffee Yeah I do think music, poetry and others are important, but they're not on par with some aforementioned topics. I don't think John Locke is wrong to call Latin useless, because it is.
@@playfulattire8819 Try to look at it in a scientific way. Latin is a language. So is Spanish, English, Chinese etc. for that matter. Langue helps us to understand things better. It helps us to get our points across too. It wouldn't be a far-fetched exaggeration if intelligence of humans is attributed to language. Law, science and maths are also expressed in language. Music just transcends you to somewhere beautiful. There's inherent maths (Pythogrean) structure in music but do we really care? No, because it simply makes us happy and jovial. My mom's a great cook. When she is cooking with the flow of music she just makes some utterly delicious cuisines. Haha Poetry helps you connect two totally unrelated and distinct dots in time and space in an abstract plane that suddenly and unfathomably gives away a broader meaning to life and philosophy. Dr. V.S. Ramachandran, a brilliant scholar and neuroscientist suggests people to indulge in peotry to unleash the hidden potential of human brain. You should see his videos. Language, Music and Poetry are not useless. I repeat they are not. They are as important as law or science.
Bruce Halford Alright I can see your arguement. Smart humans can do nothing without motivation. But isn't music something you discover on your own? If music is for your enjoyment, then John Locke is correct that it should only be listened during your leisure time. Some people don't enjoy music and others who do only enjoy it when they're alone and stuff. I don't know about you but, music in my school is just understanding boring music sheets which most people won't probably use. As for latin, it does have use in understanding scientific term but other than that? It just helps you memorise scientific term better but you don't need it to learn science. Not many people speak latin at a regular basis. You put the importance of Latin on the basis that it is "useful" to learn science, so that means it is ultimately inferior to science. Poetry is for enjoyment of some people. Maybe I can give you points that children needs to be exposed to it first before liking it. But after they're older, not everyone should be forced to read poetry. Some people don't enjoy it. It is not beneficial for many people so therefore it is an unpractical method to motivate workers after they graduate. Your analysis are all correct. But it is not applied to the topic at hand, which is school and how practical it is to people when they leave school.
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Psychology,neuroscience and philosophy should mandatory in highschools, we are left ignorant of most important things in life by our education system.
I took both psychology and philosophy in highschool. It's not the system.
in public high school ?.......was it mandatory?
Yes it was a public high-school. No it was not mandatory. However, education is a choice either way. No one is forced to go to school, and especially not high-school. By that time, we all have the individual choice to drop out after a certain period of time. Whether a course is "Mandatory," or not isn't why a kid loses his interest in education. Education is already beautiful. If someone decides for themselves to believe otherwise, it's their own fault. Any excuse otherwise, like blaming the institution, blaming parents, blaming past failures, well, that's just the efforts of the individual to try to make up for his perceived mistakes in life. In my opinion, that person shouldn't be so hard on themselves. Education isn't the most important thing in the world.
it is mandatory for teens to attend school for the first two years of high school.............in most schools what are the students taught about the socio-political context of the world they are about to enter after graduation?............in the four years of high school what job skill do most students learn?
Well, if those kids drop out only after two years, whatever they learned, probably won't have any use in the world after graduation. If they do go beyond the two years, and actually WANT to learn, then, I'm sure, that it doesn't matter what they are taught about that unless, they choose to have a career that revolves around it. Also, you are required to take a political course in college. So, going to college, might help people out
You guys explained it better in less than 10 minutes than my teacher did in a month of classes. Good job
in your point of view teachers suck WOW
The guy was obviously ahead of his time. It's amazing he wasn't Locked-up lol.
Not really for a man working in slave-trade.
😂 Good one!
@Ryan Fox
I didn't read you whole comment, but I am not totally against slavery, but to not understand me wrong I am against racism... It is a good to punch people better than whole life prison ... Just deal with them as human
Only on RUclips can a pun get out of hand so fast.
Ha
So interesting that Locke and Hobbes both witnessed the execution of Charles I, ultimately coming to sometimes very different conclusions because of it. One of my favorite series, please keep up the great work!
No he did not
Bro i was thinking the same 🤪
This channel explicitly said that Thomas Hobbs had a first hand account, probably Locke too had it too.
"Life, liberty and Property" My all time favourite quote.
Ron Swanson
"life, order, and reverence" is one of mine
Life, Liberty and Solidarity
Mmmm... Locke included slaves in his definition of property, so maybe, fuck that guy!
@@MsColl90 You are holding him accountable by the standards of today, you shouldn't do that. It's one of the biggest mistakes we could do when we are learning history. I recommend you to read some of the Locke's work, and you won't say 'fuck that guy'.
John Locke
Fun Fact: Locke was going to become a doctor, till he met Earl of Shaftsburry (very political figure).
What to do about differing religious views?
Toleration
- People CAN'T (lacking of ability) determine which is a true religious standpoint.
- Even if you could, no one can make (by violence) you genuinely believe something.
- Religious uniformity leads to more social chaos, than allowing diversity,
Who should rule the country?
-God gives that authority.
- The rule must make people comfortable in society
- The ruler has to respect everyone's freedom and property. Beyond that the people have the right to overthrow their rulers.
How should we educate our children?
- People's views are shaped by their experiences, as they are blank slates when they are born. Therefore, educate them right, and early.
- They should be taught practical things such as ethics, business, psychology, science, etc.
Important definition:
State of nature, when we have all rights before joining society. (as we consent to give up some rights to live in society)
Forced religious uniformity creates a horrid environment for society, but if it comes about naturally it’s as good or bad as the religion that dominates is.
nah u jus blessed i got hw on this
Let’s goo I just got hw for this vid and I saved me
@@feartheghus yes exactly, this is where Locke fails his own words on toleration. "Because you can't be compelled belief thru violence"....
Who should rule the country?
The authority gets the consent to rule from the people. Their duty is to protect the natural rights of the people, that is, the right to life, liberty and property.
Great man. Locke is basicaly the father of the american constitution. A man that should be remembered for everyone that values the freedom of the individuals.
Willian Pablo lol
freedom of individuals and state are oxymorons xddd
Adam Smith, Lincoln, and Marx had more to do with the final versions of the American constitution. Locke was just someone who had ideas that resonated throughout the constitution.
@@strongfp Did you just say Karl Marx? If so, are you joking?
@@goblinisac5759 nope. The moral philosophy behind marxs work has lead to many advancements in workers rights, workers conditions, and keeping capitalism in check.
His idea of education was better than our actual education. And that over 300 years ago, wow :O
No music? No poetry? You actually think that's better?
@@OrsinoNation i do believe school should prepare you to the world and not teach you actual skills. those skills should be obtained by practicing and maybe going to college
Schools evolving...
Just backwards.
well I disagree with his idea that music and poetry aren't important because they very much are. But generally his idea on education I think he is correct.
You think so? I'd say music and poetry are extremely valuable assets. There are those (and many) who don't find the time or even get the chance to indulge in the making of music outside of school due to their living situation - should they not to be allowed to learn?
John Locke has done so much for us, it's weird to think one man's thoughts could change the course of history for the entirety of Western civilization.
John Locke is one of the most inspirational people when it comes down to human philosophy, in my opinion. Thank you for making this.
One of my most favourite philosophers in class. So grateful for him.
I still can remember learning about Locke when I was in middle school and now many years later, he remains one of my favorite philosophers.
Never knew how awesome Locke's beliefs were. Definitely one of my favorite philosophers now
If you have a my little pony profile picture, then keep that opinion to yourself. I don't want to look bad
@@MONSTERKILL2013 I agree with Saber Cat
@@MONSTERKILL2013I'm John Locke and I support this message.
@@John_Smith134 get the pints in
@@domjfp What?
It’s amazing how correct he was about everything.
So he used to be a philosopher and then he became paralyzed, got lost on an island, and became a nature boy. Wow, this man had a crazy life.
study at "Schools Of Life"
i see what ya did there mate
lol
Nice pepe btw
Canadian Cannabis thx
Locke has been one of my faves for over 50 years and now thanks to TSOL i have been rejuvenated .
Weird, I saw this searching for an early TSOL performance, and also weird this is like a lecture of things tied to a detailed organization, of which is personified as the resentful parent that was the cause of childish rebellion exhibited to the garbage I listen to called Punk Rock, which I think is just Rock. Nevermind.
We are very vulnerable to the ideas that people place in our minds
Ya but when does he get to the island
+zsasz smith was thinking this the whole time
haha right on
+miaowmiaowchowface lol me too
Music is hardly a useless thing to learn in school. The parts of the brain that are stimulated and grown by studying music are related to mathematics and other important things.
as always.. thank you. every time i learn i now at the age of 38.. find my self more accepting of infomation. and enjoy the fact that there have been so meany wise humans before me. history is truly the new sat-nav of the mind. ta rolfo
I wanted to downsize this and listen to it while I work but the Monty Python-esque style animation captivated me.
Haha, same
they should do a podcast!
Like being in school and it was AV day! Woopee!
Dick Gamble Heh, I remember that.
please do a episode on the art of war and Bertrand russell
+Sudev Sen I second this.
Russell for the win!
Thank you for accurately stating the reason for the second amendment.
Some armament is better than nothing when fending off a dictator.
Scania1982 would still result in failure, and until then the basic armament kills society not protects it
Andrew Collingridge Tell that to my uncle.He killed 2 cops by himself.If we all did this we would be able to kill all cops and army fascists.
Andrew Collingridge well that escalated quickly...
Does responsible gun ownership trigger your cognitive dissonance?
@@andrewcollingridge9429 If we limit our freedom by the maxim of that which does not harm it, government will turn paternalistic very fast and the gradual decay of liberty will be exacerbated. We seem to have forgotten that freedom and liberty do not come to us as a given. There are prices every generation pays for them, and so long as we recognize true liberty as being the universal superior element, we will continue to make such sacrifices. The words of Franklin make my case for me: "He who is willing to give up his freedom to purchase a temporary security deserves neither freedom nor security."
God Bless John Locke. his writings were the foundation of the ideas of the founding fathers. We should make a day if not a month dedicated to him.
He also had a large part in the North American slave trade, prolly not the best idea to praise him as some deity
*Thank you.* 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐💐
As L.W. was want to say 'Wonderful, Wonderful, Simply Wonderful.' Thank you. I will use this in my section on Political Philosophy. It sums up so much in so little time.
I look forward to your voice more than the subjects you discuss
Since when did the channel blow up so quickly!!! I remember seeing 125k, congratulations on gaining such a large audience 👏🏽👏🏽
Can't wait until you do a video about the your own philosophy, if u want to, I'm just saying🌚
are secular and tolerant same?
+vasilis fatta One of the top 10 channels on youtube. Love the visuals!
Frank a million percent agree with you there on that one
+vasilis fatta hipster alert
Dear John Locke,
Thank you for reminding us of our right to Life, Liberty, and Property for these rights are given to all once conceived, and are God's gift to us all.
Love from The Voluntaryist Alliance
You do not need to have a god in order to have rights. They are rights given to us by ethical thought and decisions, not the invisible man.
Da Jaumster Yes but that 'invisible man' punishes those who break the NAP.
*****
I would call it Anarcho-Lockeanism, combining the religious values of Unitarian Christianity and Anarchism, to create a perfect society.
***** I was trolling, I knew that would scare you off, and it worked.
+The Lockean Libertarian The Lockean Libertarian, aye? I like it. Don't let these fools keep you back.
John Locke... the man... the legend...
Its interesting... and fitting... that much of this video features Henry VIII. Much of modern political philosophy, arguably, could be traced (indirectly... ish) to Henry VIII. As mentioned, much of political philosophy at the time was centered around the divine right of kings. Political power was derived from, and dependent on, God. A person ruled because God allowed it. Then Henry VIII came along. As the song goes, Henry VIII had a lot of wives, but, for the purposes of this story, the only one that actually matters is his first wife, Catherine of Aaragon. Henry wanted an heir. Catherine did not produce one, so in Henry's 30s he decided to look for a new spouse. At the time, England was Catholic, so he requested from the Pope permission to annul his marriage. Divorce and annulment were not seen as valid by Catholic religious law, so it was denied. Long story, short... Henry essentially came to the conclusion that the Pope was not the King; HE was the King and, if the Pope wasn't going to approve it, then Henry was going to make his own church where it was allowed. End of the day, in 1534, Henry VIII created the Church of England (Anglican) separate from the Church of Rome, and they mutually excommunicated each other. All so he could divorce his wife. The ramifications of that action, however, were huge... especially in political philosophy. The thought went, if the power of the King was at the pleasure of God... and the king just rejected God... and nothing happened... then what does that mean? Obviously, the rational answer is that power doesn't derive from God. So, if it doesn't derive from God, then where does political power come from? That act, along with various revolutions at the time, caused an renaissance in political philosophy in the late 16th and early 17th century that examined the sources of power and rights, and lead to the development of schools of thought like Hobbes's, Locke's, and Rousseau's Social Contract Theories. It's fascinating stuff.
I very much enjoyed reading your comment. Fascinating indeed my good man. Thank you.
amazing analysis!
this comment went so hard 🤓
Love it. I'm just now getting into it. Can't believe I've been interested in philosphy and history for over 10 years since highschool and all while not grasping the enlightenment. It was the transitioning period that brought europe out of the dark ages. It set the stage for the modern world.
Man this guy was amazing, responsible for a lot of my thoughts and the way I think.
As a superhero in training, I fully endorse the hopping bear graphic holding a pile of rifles.
+Heroic Concepts the hopping graphics in an odd way keep me from clicking off the video.
+Heroic Concepts
Do you fully endorse John Locke's political theory and educational philosophy as a Superhero in training?
I have this for my exam in a week, I'm watching all your videos on political theory and it's much more interesting than reading it for 5th time. Thanks a bunch!
I have sometimes thought that the English Civil War was completed in the American War of Independence in the ideas of politics.
As an English man I have to regrettably agree.
Paul Llama It wasn't just the fact of taxation, repeatedly the Colonies asked for representation in Parliament, and were denied. The excessive taxation _without_ representation was the prime motivating factor. That and the forced quartering of Red Coats was the last straw.
Pls summarize in the next 1 and a half hours. Need it for history class. Thxx ❤❤
It‘s very urgent
My favorite part of Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration is when he says all religious views should be tolerated...except atheism
My favourite badge from the 1980s was, " DEATH TO ALL FANATICS ".:
For some reason I thought of George Orwell.
He needs a video of his own.
+Mustafa Kulle But, would one argue that Orwell is in the category of philosopher? Personally, I see Orwell as a really astute social/political commentator and novelist. Like a John Steinbeck type of thinker or writer.
My ideas are based off of these pieces I have read from Orwell: 1984, Animal Farm, Road to Wigan Pier, Down and Out in Paris and London, Essays "Shooting an Elephant," "Charles Dickens," "Politics and the English Language," and "Why I Write".
+B. Levin so you haven't read much!
+B. Levin Well I remember seeing a video on Leo Tolstoy, so why not Orwell?
orwell is over? what an odd statement..I dont think any great writer can ever truly be "over"
Hereticalable I don't think we should discard Orwell as a relic of the past. Firstly, books like Animal Farm are a good reminder of Stalinism and should be taken as a cautionary tale, regardless of how likely it is in the future. Humanity is just too good at forgetting its own mistakes.Secondly, one could argue that we are living the reality of 1984, in a way, today, where political correctness has invaded logical discourse and our words and opinions are constantly policed. You are right that we are on the cusp of the realities of Brave New World, but that in no way discredits Orwell's commentary.
This is the best reference video on Locke. Thank you so much for this comprehensive yet so-easy-to-grasp video. More power!
0.0
I can get all of the works of John Locke mentioned in this video, plus "The Fundamental Constitutions Of Carolina" for about $1.00 on Kindle. 7 works of one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers for $1.00. I guess I'll be enjoying some interesting reading on my plane ride.
In my opinion, John Locke was the most important person to ever live. And also the person I most admire.
Even Napoleon did more
I love how everyone here is considering Locke a Socialist/Communist yet he would today be considered a Right-Wing Libertarian.
He's just a classical liberal... Sad how "liberalism" today has become more about forcing progressivism and wealth distribution
I'm a Progressive Classical Liberal Centrist and I see your point.
Property rights don't seem very communistic.
He definitely would not hold many mainstream Libertarian beliefs regarding education and parental rights
How can Locke be called a communist or socialist which are necessarily totalitarian whereas Locke had advocated for minimalist government?
John Locke is probably my favorite philosopher.
My favorite Lost character.
Sun Tzu The Art of War.
***** Indeed, a great book it is :)
Thank you so much! Your videos help me to study political science. In Ukraine where I study International law there aren't many books that can explain political theories as simply, as thoroughly and fun as you guys do!
Political science is very interesting!
Lockes religious tolerance act is not so tolerant as you describe it. There was a prohibition of Catholicism and many other Christian branches because they were considered faithful to a foreign king ( the Pope ) and not the King of England.
+Samuel Palomera He was tolerant or their religious views but not their divided loyalties, and he had good reason to feel that way. When the Church of England broke away from the Catholic Church, the pope helped support an invasion to other throw the king. Also, there were papal states that the Catholic Church governed directly.
+Samuel Palomera I think the video is heavily Whig. I was going to say something about his influence on how we conceive gov. but let it slide.
Charles the second secretly became catholic.
There was an exemption for Catholics due to there loyalties to Rome, and for Atheist as they had no foundation for there promises. At the time it was meant to be a practical and utilitarian approach to persecution.
Latin, Greek and poetry should be more mainstream imo, that's how I was brought up though sadly with not enough exposure
I love John Locke, it's so beautiful that our constitution is so heavenly based on his works. it's what allows america to be amazing.
Steven E did you change your mind 4 years later
@@marinasotelo1625 Hahahaha I see what you did there.
his ideology is great in some ways but also greatly mislead. Its self contradictory in nature in many ways. Don't idealize philosophers. You can benefit most from studying philosophy by taking a skeptical viewpoint and learning to identify the good aspects and flaws within philosophy. No philosophy is without flaws. Including locke's.
Bravo... Locke. Thanks for being.
"Don't tell me what I can't do!" - John Loche
One of the finest and superior brains of all times.
Es quizás mi filósofo favorito, es un crack. Había leído unas cuantas páginas, pero me encontré una un léxico demasiado elevado para mi jejeje. Por cierto claramente entiendo y veo las bases de la Psicología especialmente la educacional.
Life, Liberty and Property.
Didn't know that you could travel in time too.
Hands down best educational channel on RUclips!
I just saw a children’s cartoon where John Locke is teaching kids the difference between needs and rights on IG. The comment section screamed propaganda having no idea that they were lashing out at the father of liberalism.
Please School of Life, I am begging:
Make a video on Edmund Burke and the issue of social leveling. It is the only backing I have found towards elitist ideals that strikes me as logical and I am fascinated by it.
Thumps up my comment please!
How do you think the philosophy of John Locke and Edmund Burke can be applied to Doug Wilson and his inability to build a cup winning team? Personally, I think DW is not that great of a GM and Nabokhov deserved better treatment.
@dieform fuckdemocracy
Im 30 and just on a whim decided to read Of Enthusiasm. Ive never read more clear and sound explications of mathematical philosophy(axiomatic logic as the foundation for pure mathematics) and ethics ive ever read. It made me cry.
Amazing video guys, helped me a lot with my studying thank you
Locke was ahead of his time. What a brilliant thinker and so very relevant.
Thank you so much! It helped me a lot to understand Locke’s thoughts. :) I’m using this video for my final exam from social sciences so this is lifesaving.
He was a really cool guy though.
what a fantastic short rendition of Lock. I, like most people new the name of Lock and probably heard high brow philosophy make reference to Lock. I neverstood what the man was about, until I tripped over this. The readers voice is so easy to listen to. thank you for making this available. Top man
So many wise words, yet some terrible conclusions as well. Very good episode.
+Magnus Nygaard like what?
Like the idea that "a state of nature" would be peaceful, here Hobbes is much closer. No "primitive" societies (about as close to "a state of nature we can observe) have ever been particularly peaceful or existing in a pleasant state.
Or the idea that languages, art and music are not useful for children's education. Creativity and innovation doesn't stem from thinking in a straight line.
Or for that matter the over-emphasis on early childhood as a foundation for our personality, as if our personality doesn't constantly evolve, and can change at any age, not just early childhood.
In general I'm very much in favor of many of Locke's ideas, but as with any revolutionary ideas, they often become a little too sharp around the edges... life is evolution, not revolution.
+Magnus Nygaard it depends on how you define what a peaceful/pleasant state it's subjective to perspective.
+Magnus Nygaard No primitive society ever lived without a ruler. As far as humankind is concerned, there has always been a ruler of a pack, who as it turned out, got the first bite of the hunt. No such ruler waits for their turn to power. They see vulnerability, and then take their opportunity. Locke's argument is about the OVERWHELMING majority of human population in history, who have want to be left alone. The peaceful live and die, while the loud and violent get their name in history.
+Magnus Nygaard Hello Magnus, I believe we have crossed paths before. I saw your comment here just after I left my own and will repeat it here, because I believe you'd like to see it:
"It is because of him (Locke) that we believe that governments should
not tyrannise their subjects, that we try so hard to give our children
good childhoods"
Its a shame he didn't think this applied to Slaves, Native Americans and the children of the poorhouses - none of whose individual (liberal) rights he supported.
He even argued that beggars be forced to wear badges to identify them on the streets, not unlike how the Nazis would later identify the Jews.
Locke may have done a lot of good, but this myopic, saccharine sweet viewpoint doesn't describe anybody who has studied him.
And it doesn't do any justice in educating your audience either. I'm
disappointed."
I love John Locke!
Love this. Helped lead me in a new direction while writing a book on indoctrinating students.
any updates on the book? Id like to check it out given the circumstances of education nowadays
I don't know how I got to this corner of RUclips, but you made me fall in love with John Locke in less than ten minutes. Well done. What a brilliant man, clearly far ahead of his time. Thanks for introducing me to a historical figure I hadn't heard of before.
Proud to say this is my cousin! I have always referenced him in my studies and it is wonderful to find that we are related.
congrats bro
It’s because of him that the west has learned of religious tolerance but not acceptance. India for centuries has known this and thrived on tolerance and acceptance!
This is now, officially, definitely, and FOREVERLY, my favorite channel.
not on my life
what an intelligent man!
Grande pensador John Locke! Difícil é ser citado nas oratorias brasileira.
Thank you!
Actually it was clearly a typo. The Second Amendment clearly says "The Right to Bear Rams"
k
k
+Alex Xavier Steel - D REALLY!!??? I thought is was the right to "bare arms". Like we didn't have to wear sleeves.
mathew hill indeed, they were against sleevery
The police werent happy when I cut of a bear's arms. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
I can't stop thinking of the Locke from the to show Lost
Could you do an episode on being second best (or anything less than first)? I find that media today has so much hype over being "the very best", but there is often no sympathy to those who came in second. The phrase second is the first loser is proof of that, as well as the commercial for the Pokemon tournament. There are many other examples like Karate Kid and many other films.
Thank you a billion times! I wish if you can make one about David Hume. great work thank you so so much!
nice self promotion at the end there XD
+John Smith whatever pays the bills.
+John Smith but it's their video after all.
Yeah, though his narrative was fairly well done, he exposed his left-wing Marxist idiocy when he presented a picture of President Trump when discussing the overthrow of tyrants. Like all leftists, they believe they are smarter than everyone else. The Dunning-Kruger effect. "Why stupid people think they are smart."
His voice is amazing!!
So sad to be french bc this channel looks perfect for school and my homeworks :(
Don't they know English?
Desert Sand yes we all learn English at school but I don't understand all the words, it would be better in french haha but any way I learn english and history in the same time! (sorry if there are some mistakes)
Laurine yt Ah that makes sense I took french for 3 years but I would obviously understand a lecture better in English than French.
Desert Sand oh ok cool! I though French is very difficult than English...(to learn)
Laurine yt Yeah French is a harder than english but French isn't so bad once you get the conjugations right
Man I wish we focused more on what Locke thought was important study subjects in our schools.
Everything was fine until he spoke of how music and poetry are 'useless' and science, ethics, business and psychology being 'useful'. What is 'useful' or 'useless' is completely subjective. I believe no one has the right to say to another what he should educate himself on, what he should spend his time on. I had science classes, and I forgot almost everything about it, and I have found no use out of it. I can safely say that what has mould my open-mindedness and my view on the world is art. Videogames, music, movies, litterature, poetry and philosophy were the things that brought me to be a more empathetic person for I have travel in many persons's minds or lives (fictional persons or not). People that don't have the same ideas as I have, the same things that I love, the same values, the same sense of morality, Art as brought me to understand them and to take their sides. And I do not say that science is useless, I say that science is no use for me, because it's not what interests me the most, I prefer other things than science. My point is: we should educate ourselves on the things that we love, we should not educate ourselves on the things that another loves. I believe that by realizing the things that we love and embrace them, and exploit them, and decant them, we can reach many many other great things, for example: through videogames, I discovered a passion for music at the age of 6, through videogames, I discovered a passion for litterature for I had realized that I loved stories, through litterature, I discovered a passion for poetry, philosophy and, thanks to philosophy, i'm starting to be very fond of politics. What is of use is what we love, and, so, the latter will determine the school of life, that is: the school that pushes us to decant the things that makes us enjoy life, that makes us even more eager to pursue it.
perhaps it would have been that side education that Locke talked about that would have helped you understand that humans are not infallible. you watched the entire video where the author explains how this man changed the course of our history, and you chose to focus your attention on the last negative piece of the video. Take this as a self evident truth: NO one is perfect. , but it was Locke that gave us the idea of unalienable rights ( life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness ) and thus you, me, and everybody else is entitled to their own opinions...
I admit that my comment lacks objectivity and merely adresses one of the many ideas described, and because of that, it would be easy to think that I haven't paid equal attention to his other ideas, but that's not the case and that's no reason to say that I think everyone is infallible or perfect. I never, because of that one idea on education, considered the rest of Locke's ideas as trash, you just put those words in my mouth. And yes, no one is perfect, and, yes, everyone have their own opinions, but is it a reason to do or say nothing? No, obviously. I am sorry if I am somewhat rude to you but I fail to see the point of your comment and I have never done, in spite of what my comment makes you think, the things you've said.
Best philosopher of all.
jon lock is a hero for all ages...for all liberals around the world specially those under totalitarian governments... never give in
True. His ideas live on and are still relevant. :)
Hagag Hamed too bad he's not a liberal
James Locke yes he was, a classical Liberal. Also dubbed the "father of liberalism"
Muniz Sims he was a liberal back then but if you were to come here now and see what liberals have become he'd be very very angry
James Locke No I agree, SJWs are people that sickens me.
What a great teacher you are! Thnx 😍😍
i just want to say thank you to my 7th grade teacher for making me fall in love with locke and the enlightenment
11th grade now
It is always good to come back to these videos. They help clarify my mind and bring it back to the basics of knowledge.
Well done!
thank you
Locke was wrong about music!
Agree. He was right about eveything else, but poetry and music teach sensibility, besides other things and learning other language teaches you toleration towards other cultures.
We all like the curriculum more. Do more !!
You should do one on Ayn Rand. Great work, keep it up!
+Steven Hawking I personally loathe the brand of objectivism tied to Ayn Rand, but her writing is very interesting. It is very selfish and indifferent to others
snap peas Selfishness is a virtue. What inclines a man to give away what is his, if not society's greed? The ultimate man is he who takes what's his and never forgets that it is.
Steven Hawking Virtuous value of a trait is subjective. Selfishness is only as much as a virtue as selflessness. Selfishness is a virtue because you assign value to it. In the words of Arthur Schopenhauer, compassion is the basis of morality. A man can give away his because of society's greed, but he can also give away his out of compassion and altruism. You have no objective way of deciding who the "ultimate" man is, or what he may be like. The idea of the ultimate man being one "who takes what's his and never forgets that it is" is just as delusional as thinking that there is a heaven or hell. You only conjure up and stick to that philosophy because it makes you subjectively feel superior. It is simply a philosophy that justifies your hedonistic inclinations, parasitism, and predation. It is ego masturbation and nothing more.
snap peas Your misunderstanding of Objectivism is why you are contemptuous of it. "He can also give away his out of compassion and altruism," this is in direct pursuit of his own happiness. If it does not make a man happier to help others, he would not do it. The man sees suffering and attempts to help, because he is only human. If the man were presented with a situation in which his own well being were in danger and he knew that that was the case, he would only go against his direct self-interest if he knew or thought it were in-directly in his self-interest, for example, two army buddies are waiting behind cover and a grenade lands at their feet. One of the men lays on the grenade and screams, "run!" and takes the blast and his own life in the process. He would only do this if he were at the very least acquainted with the other man. He would not jump on a grenade for a man he dislikes or is indifferent to. He's not actually thinking of the other man, only his selfish opinion of the man. Another reason this man might want to jump on the grenade is that he wishes to heighten the worlds acknowledgement of himself, even if he doesn't get to reap the benefits of his story. The moral of this story is that nobody does anything without some type of selfishness, regardless of intent, and that if they used reason and thought of themselves before others, no one would have to worry of other's well being. That's not to say we cannot have friends (whose purpose is mutual benefit, ie: happiness for happiness, supply for money, money for the transportation of supply etc.) and worry about them when they are sick, hurt etc. but to always work for yourself and only others whom truly benefit you, and that if one has the ability to act in his self-interest and doesn't, he doesn't deserve anyone's help in the first place. One who takes what's his and never forgets that it is is the ultimate man because all he does is produce; everything he does for himself ultimately benefits society the same - he sells what he produces and gives people what they want, for what he wants. I need to go to sleep. If you have any questions I would be proud to help convince you of Objectivism. Also, next time don't use something like "hedonistic inclinations" against a man who realizes that happiness is the ultimate end in and of itself. Joy is not sin; it is the opposite. Also, how dare you call me parasitic and predatory, that is the exact opposite of Objectivist ideology.
Steven Hawking I live in Los Angeles. I have walked through Skid Row. I have seen the excess of the Downtown shopping centers. I once spoke with a homeless man and his autistic child about his struggle in finding a shelter that respected his child. In short, I have a bias. As long as these things exist, I can never, and will never, accept Objectivism as the pinnacle of philosophy. I only see it as one piece of the human story at best. It is the same problem I have with a meritocracy. It simply fails to acknowledge the hostility of probability. You accused society as greedy in taking what is rightfully someone else's. That to me seems like a conflation between need and greed. Men like Emile Durkheim realized that capitalism brings about its own set of problems, with suicide being the tip of the iceberg of psychological stress. Men like Theodor Adorno noticed that capitalism prefers to keep us consuming. The problem with objectivism in my not-so-humble opinion is that there is conflation between happiness and comfort. I will be happy running 10 miles in the rain, but I will be comfortable doing the opposite, sitting on the couch with some tea and cookies. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think that people as a whole, left to their own devices, have the capacity to cope with the indifference of the universe and stop naturally-occurring psychopathy from taking the reigns of society
Thank God you exist!! You just saved my filosofy essey. Thankyou. This is amazing
Interesting, I wonder why Locke could not see the link between self-expression (music, poetry) and psychology? I agree that dead languages should not be compulsory, thankfully they aren't any more.
@@michaelkelly7379 i think you missed the point of the original comment
We should be taught how to be creative and think critically and we should be allow to learn that which interests us and how to use the tools available to us to achieve our goals and pursue our interests. Don't make the square peg fit into a round hole.
That's the content I subscribed for! You guys should stick with philosophy, politics and history.
my favorite man on LOST.
8:05 So even the great John Locke is not without flaws. Music, poetry and literature is as important as science, maths, law or any other discipline if not more.
"as important"
Latin, greek, music and poetry. Tell me how those are on the same level of importance as SCIENCE, MATH, LAW and PHILOSOPHY. When is the last time you needed to speak fluent latin in your daily life compared to using your understanding of law to pay your taxes, manage your finance, etc.
@@playfulattire8819 I think that is the he is trying to make. No human is without flaw. It is highly likely we should remember the great things someone has to offer as information and learn from their flaws.
Kelly Rowland Coffee Yeah I do think music, poetry and others are important, but they're not on par with some aforementioned topics. I don't think John Locke is wrong to call Latin useless, because it is.
@@playfulattire8819 Try to look at it in a scientific way. Latin is a language. So is Spanish, English, Chinese etc. for that matter. Langue helps us to understand things better. It helps us to get our points across too. It wouldn't be a far-fetched exaggeration if intelligence of humans is attributed to language. Law, science and maths are also expressed in language.
Music just transcends you to somewhere beautiful. There's inherent maths (Pythogrean) structure in music but do we really care? No, because it simply makes us happy and jovial. My mom's a great cook. When she is cooking with the flow of music she just makes some utterly delicious cuisines. Haha
Poetry helps you connect two totally unrelated and distinct dots in time and space in an abstract plane that suddenly and unfathomably gives away a broader meaning to life and philosophy. Dr. V.S. Ramachandran, a brilliant scholar and neuroscientist suggests people to indulge in peotry to unleash the hidden potential of human brain. You should see his videos.
Language, Music and Poetry are not useless. I repeat they are not. They are as important as law or science.
Bruce Halford Alright I can see your arguement. Smart humans can do nothing without motivation. But isn't music something you discover on your own? If music is for your enjoyment, then John Locke is correct that it should only be listened during your leisure time. Some people don't enjoy music and others who do only enjoy it when they're alone and stuff. I don't know about you but, music in my school is just understanding boring music sheets which most people won't probably use.
As for latin, it does have use in understanding scientific term but other than that? It just helps you memorise scientific term better but you don't need it to learn science. Not many people speak latin at a regular basis. You put the importance of Latin on the basis that it is "useful" to learn science, so that means it is ultimately inferior to science.
Poetry is for enjoyment of some people. Maybe I can give you points that children needs to be exposed to it first before liking it. But after they're older, not everyone should be forced to read poetry. Some people don't enjoy it. It is not beneficial for many people so therefore it is an unpractical method to motivate workers after they graduate.
Your analysis are all correct. But it is not applied to the topic at hand, which is school and how practical it is to people when they leave school.
We also have a natural right to self defense because of his work
4:00 that cut out of Trump's hair though.