My fiancé is a social worker. She was taught to value everybody's personal experiences and to see them all as equally valid and truthful. She defended it fiercely and said that it's an important part of psychotherapeutic care. To show her just how intellectually schizophrenic the concept is, I pulled the "lived experience" card during a small argument one day. When she continued to challenge me, saying that my anecdotal experience has no bearing on fact, I kept repeating how prejudiced and intolerant she was because she was refusing to accept my truth and experience as valid. That was when she realized just how untenable and impractical the concepts of "lived experience" and "subjective truth" are.
In support of the point. Jordan Peterson says that therapists and mental health professionals have no business affirming anything claimed by the client/patient. He says he is "on the side of you that aims up," not on what you think is best. If what you thought was best were working you wouldn't need professional help!
My social worker back when I was a child chose to pull the "sudden onset" card regarding the fact that I'd been diagnosed with Aspergers (a mess of individual external influences/traumas/etc stemming from "surviving" almost being aborted by a DIY attempt, family split-up, being used as a bargaining chip or weapon as such against my father, mild form of early gender dysphoria due to the failed abortion, etc). The social worker would pull the card to try and dismiss my say in court against her when she tried to split I from my father, because I said to the court according to what I was asked and my social worker didn't like my answer, she told the judge that I couldn't possibly be of a sound enough mind purely on the basis I've been diagnosed as having Autism Spectrum Disorder. They pick and chose what "lived experience" fits what they want at any given time, luckily the judge at the time saw right through her.... Only for almost a couple years later to pull a false claim of threat to have I and my older bro kidnapped by police and put into "care". Even though I'm glad, now I've been independent for over a decade and at age 31, that my childhood social worker is now buried after succumbing to her obesity, I see comments like yours and wonder if my social worker started out with good intent aking to your fiance, but unlike your fiance, my social worker got brainwashed by the harmful ideology that was the mess of my childhood and a major reason I remain just within the androgyny valley (of the "femboy" leaning attributes) instead of sorting out the mess of a body I got. So, basically, I'm glad your SO came to terms before she ended up like my social worker.
@@neglectfulsausage7689 Just because Blake Stone and his fiancé had an argument and he pointed out the flaw in her logic, it doesn't mean he's destined for incoming divorce. In fact, I think it brought them closer together.
Politics used to be how people who disagree can get along without killing each other. Now it's just an excuse to do that exact thing. They don't want to debate you; they want to subjugate you.
My sister is 6 ft 3 in tall and weighs 105 lbs. she hardly eats and thinks she is fat she sometimes purges after eating because she “identifies” as obese. Whenever we have Thanksgiving dinner I affirm her identity by telling her what a fat gross disgusting pig she is and I compliment her by telling her how brave and courageous she is
Not really. In my line of work I had to interview a lot of r*pe victims. So they had lived experiences of violence, violation and loss of agency. Then I also interviewed experts who studied violence and agency in theory. So I have to consider which experience should I use when creating an effective counseling session for Victims of sexual abuse.
My experience is that my own "lived experiences" tend to be impossible to verify to outside parties, and unless tangibly relevant to a given conversation are cheapened by being brought up.
My sister is 6 ft 3 in tall and weighs 105 lbs. she hardly eats and thinks she is fat she sometimes purges after eating because she “identifies” as obese. Whenever we have Thanksgiving dinner I affirm her identity by telling her what a fat gross disgusting pig she is and I compliment her by telling her how brave and courageous she is
Celia hit corpus Christi with 140 mph winds and 180 gusts, but that was 1970. Didn't even get out of bed for Harvey , but Rockport got whacked. What a difference 20 or 30 miles can make. Wind radius maps helped me escape hurricane fever and Ian was the first one I can remember where they used them because it was just so big. Typically they show you a picture of a hurricane that fills the entire Gulf of Mexico, screaming you're all going to die
Destructive weather events are expected to increase, but over decades. No individual event can be attributed to CC, per (for example) Potholer54 who reads and presents the actual scientific studies. He is a retired oil geologist, familiar with the history of Earth via rock layers and glaciers. One of his major peeves is people on both sides of the debate citing politicians and bloggers and pop-sci journals that put their own spin on reasonable fact finding, and make exaggerated claims. One example was saying Aus drought and fires were proof of CC. Actual scientists who study CC never said that. On the other hand, a scientist in the late 1800s noted that CO2 behaved like a greenhouse gas and he predicted with careful calculations that a sharp rise in CO2 emissions from the early and rising Industrial Age would have somewhat predictable effects. This is entirely different from Al Gore's public relations movie. He also pointed to the first politician to embrace this science, a decade before Al Gore: Margaret Thatcher. What ruined it for Maggie was her movement got taken over and co-opted by ... MARXISTS who insisted that the only solution was to abolish capitalism.
Not just your experience, but the actual data. Ian was still TOTALLY from climate change though, because we all know individual events are what climate means
@@smokeydapot I was born in Texas in 1965 and my lived experience dictates that it is getting warmer , had I been born in the twenties I would know better , and that's why The Science likes to start their trends at the late seventies when it was cold as hell.
@@smokeydapot I think you intend that to be a humorous sarcastic comment, bc scientists don't or can't attribute individual events or even localized events directly to what they define as climate change. Weather is too chaotic. I'm not a mathematician but I'm aware of the development of chaos theory for systems that don't react predictably to a calculus formula that might apply to a machine. BROAD TRENDS over time, including a tendency for more erratic weather patterns, and a change in average _global_ temperatures NOT local temperatures. One of the effects suggested in past winters was destabilizing of high pressure zones in the Arctic that allow Arctic cold fronts to dip down farther and longer into temperate zones, bringing more Arctic deep freeze to America, while the larger overall global effect is warming on average. The most dire predictions are of temperate North America becoming uninhabitable.
Lived experience is what the stoics call impressions. Stoicism is mainly a system for questioning these impressions and, by doing so, helping people flourish.
When i think of this concept i think its what the woke beureacratic middle class lack, reflected in how detached from the average person they are, in their sense of trauma, of humour, of what makes us human, etc. Utterly nil lived experience.
That's an interesting point. It's so true. I've met many university Marxists where I'm at and they're so book-cucked that it's so handy to take on the collective personality dictated by race/privilege since they lack strong personality/character
This reminds me of the Michael Knowles claim is committing violence against them. He says of course he is not, but they reply that he never asked them if they *felt* like violence was being committed against them. To which he replied that of course he didn't because it's an objective fact that he did not.
Thinking on this more, the turtles all the way down problem is only solved by picking a resolution that works for you. We all do it. The Left pics a new level for everything based on what serves them in that moment with that one thing. A healthy person is going to pick a general level for most things that is ground in reality and gives them some control in their life. It's a constant problem all human's have to deal with, because there are always more turtles down below that allows you to blame others. Fault isn't as important as responsibility and that distinction is lost and causes people to fear the higher level turtles. Don't descent into a depressing personal hell. Pick a higher level turtle.
Our own experience IS lived experience and we draw from it, but it may be that we can go on to experience something else in later life that amelorates our previously strongly held 'beliefs '..hmmm
True open-mindedness necessitates being able to potentially reevaluate old conclusions in the face of new, conflicting information, neither of which warrant disregarding outright.
Based on what I've learned before in addition to this, I see this: lived experience = mystical knowledge of the world. Basically, all these things Marxism and Neo-Marxism churned up is, we have the "higher consciousness," we have the secret knowledge of the world, so our "lived experience" overcomes reality. Another thing I can connect to this is Rhonda Byrne's The Secret, which believes man is God and human thoughts can alter reality. Both this and Marxism I believe are descended from Gnosticism. Another philosophical argument I recall is the idea that something cannot exist unless a consciousness acknowledges its existence. For example, if the earth existed as a ball of rock without humans on it, it will be explained by "lived experience" as not existing at all. Saying "it doesn't exist for humans only because they're not around" is still wrong for them. It doesn't exist, period. It's another way of establishing man as God.
It's funny, as someone who has had religious experiences before, I can appreciate the transformative value/consciousness-raising of phenomenology... _to a point._ In my own "lived experience," it's also a profoundly humbling to go through. The very act of meeting God gave me a newfound appreciation of _why_ people might not believe, because the incident I'm currently thinking of _transcended rationality and logic._ To quote Harley Warren from _The Statement of Randolph Carter,_ "It's too utterly beyond thought!" Said experience was also utterly subjective, in that I had no means of verifying one way or another that what happened to me _actually happened_ in a way that most sane people outside my religion would reasonably believe, let alone in a way that would be admissible in court or acceptable in an academic journal (save perhaps in an ethnographic study using me as a subject for interview). (I have since had shared experiences with others, but those were all things that don't really warrant serious news coverage.) I had no corroborating evidence for what I had been through, _and I was okay with that._ If nothing else, it hammered home a lesson I had been taught in church up to that point but never internalized: God wants to form personal relationships with His creations, and correspondingly, some aspects of friendships are best kept private between relevant parties. Furthermore, I was not in a position (nor did I even want to) to claim that I had achieved special transcendence that left me better than other people. What I experienced left me with a better understanding of fundamental reality and my place within it, and any attempt on my part to convey said experience would never come close to conveying the gravity of going through it firsthand. I was fundamentally in no position to claim authority on anything, _nor should I necessarily be in this domain, where I remain a but a lay-student._ Based on my understanding of the Bible, my experience (harrowing though it was) was but a taste of what humans are called by their Creator to do anyway. Even if I could reasonably claim some kind of authority here, _to what end?_ These would-be hierophants in their own narcissistic cults of self-worship display none of the genuine humility _or solemnity_ I have observed (both in myself and others) of those who actually touch upon higher spheres of existence. As ever, it always comes back to grasping for power, by hook or by crook, using whatever bluffs or cheats can get them into a position to dominate others. The English language does not have a word for how thoroughly this mindset and wanton lack of moral fiber sickens me.
+1 good write. it takes something to talk openly and publicly about transcendent experience self consciously. it sounds like a similar experience to described psychedelics and something called "ego death."
experience - a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something. Lived experience is a tautology (because experience can't be not lived) that, I agree, is used to underscore the importance of one's personal events to shut down any debates or discourses ;)
Today is 10/7/22, Tony Heller uploaded a video to RUclips on hurricane Ian and the other major hurricanes going back to the late 1800’s. Short video, well worth watching.
@@spectralisation no, it just doesn't count at all as 'lived experience' at all. Those who don't tow the line are merely victims of internalized self discrimination.
Unlived experience - (1) recounting stories you heard others telling and passing them off as your own lived experience. (2) faking an experience ie hiring people to "attack" you to claim you're a victim of racism.
There is unlived experience, and that is, ever since the rise of covidianism, "the science." There is lived experience, which reaches exactly as far as one's own nose, and fiat by expert, which is the atheist imperialist version of objective reality. Let's return to Truth.
These started with a 12 minute maximum, and are now routinely twice that length and starting to converge towards full ND podcast length. I appreciate the content but is the intended target audience of this series still reachable at this length?
the counterpoint logic to the claim of authority through "lived experience" is the concept of bias and the idea that a more removed perspective is more valid.
"Lived Experience" is a stand in for actual perceptions, real or imagined, that confirm the biases of the person who is passing those perceptions off as "Lived Experience".
All real informative, but I was expecting to hear how to counter the argument. You laid out the problem; arm your listeners with with a solution; how to fight BACK this "but my loved experience" argument whenever it arises.
Receiving Christ and God's Holy Spirit is lived experience, yet these people refuse to accept it because it doesn't fit their solipsistic and nihilistic narratives.
I agree, sort of. Actually I see the reception of Christ and the Holy Spirit as belonging to objective reality, and they are at war with objective reality. I would be careful regarding contact with God as a purely personal experience, since you would be playing into their hand. Notice how the Covidian cultists all wanted people to meet God alone, and outside of the common experience of the Church? They shut down the Churches to turn the Universal into the personal, where they can dismiss it out of hand. These people are demons. Guard your discernment.
Sadly, I can affirm Don Lemon's " lived experience" of living in the South, but no where NEAR a coast or Florida. He grew up in NORTH Louisiana and moved to Brooklyn after highschool. Hurricanes are an issue on the Gulf Coast obviously, but Baton Rouge is very much "up state". He loves to act like a guru on all things Southern, including the racism of going to a diverse upscale school, where he was elected to student council and very popular. He praised his school experience until he got woke in 2016.
It’s a pretty slick con. You get to blame everyone else for everything, attempt to control everyone else and never take responsibility for yourself. The tricky part is that there is some truth to the lives experience, but it doesn’t help the individual take charge and make changes for themselves.
They have it all the other way around. Science is above lived experience; science is the interpretation of distributions, lived experience is a point in a distribution.
Lived experience is anecdote. It's the equivalent of "God spoke to me, that's why I have faith. I can't prove it happened, but it totally happened. Trust me, bro". Somehow, the cultists have completely inverted the value of objective data with anecdote. And somehow, a ton of atheists and skeptics don't notice or point this out. That's pretty mind blowing and eye opening for me to see.
LOL I just posted about this! Of course, as someone who _has_ had such experiences, I know better than to use them to claim authority or field them as serious arguments.
Atheism is too often not a LACK of belief, but rather a faith-based DISbelief. Peter Hitchens described these atheists as clinging to the hope that there will be no consequences for their actions in life. Fits the commie crowd well.
As someone who has argued against all forms of relativism my whole life, I find this new vigor for it particularly egregious and dangerous to all epistemological pursuits. From my layperson's perspective, I've always seen it as intellectual weakness or a lack of considered analysis when people speak in or defend a relativistic argument. I had no idea that it has a root in actual theory or that it is valued as a 'higher' form of knowing. This takes an already flawed and counter-productive way of seeing the world and magnifies it to be many times more dangerous than I had realised. Thanks James for continuing to shed vital light on this grotesque intellectual and cultural disease.
The issue of "Verstand and Vernunft" is that it's scientifically true, but the left has then argued that experience is how you have vernunft which is completely wrong Experience is Verstand. (I experience hunger therefore I understand the feeling of hunger) It then takes someone to be objective to explain the "why" of that experience, such as a biochemist. A person feels hunger because of biochemical responses which evolved as a survival mechanism to prevent an animal from dying As the ideologues reject objectivity they reverse this process so they can assert they subjectively know better than that which is demonsterable. To use a turn of phrase from another ideological camp "they're putting on their God-glasses" Reason is higher than understanding. But "lived experience" is not reason
It's the natural political progression of appeal to authority. Practically lived experience increases polical power, when everyone is their own authority in a democracy it strengthens the force of the public will. Dialectically abolishing the individual by imbracing the subjective individual.
That definition of phenomenology is not a good one. Phenomenology can be really useful when studied and utilized in the right way - the majority of serious phenomenologists wouldn’t say that objective reality doesn’t exist.
I agree that the immense weight given to “lived experience” (or more accurately, the right people’s lived experience) in favor of actual data or stats is extremely problematic. But I think that it does stem from those specific situations where evidence can be ignored, destroyed, or not exist in a form that can be examined by outside parties. So the only possible source is the people involved and what they say. An example that concerns me the most are incidences of sexual harassment or assault. When I was assaulted there were no other people around, and since I managed to get away before he could rape me I only sustained injuries that were the result of being shoved to the ground. I didn’t know the person, so in the end I had zero evidence, and the incident can’t even be recorded as a statistic. The only way to get the evidence needed would have been for me to let him rape me. I’ve felt a lot of guilt ever since for *not* just putting up with it and letting him do it, because if he’s hurt another woman I could have possibly prevented it. But as you pointed out in this video, the conversation for how to handle these types of he-said she-said situations has morphed into the narrative that anecdotes are the ONLY reliable source of information, not just for situations where that is the only evidence but for any claim at all, regardless of evidence. Now claims of sexual assault hold the same weight as “I used to live there, and I’m sure the storms are getting worse”. This makes them even easier to ignore by those on the right, and just a prop for the left, easily forgotten when there’s a newer, more exciting experience to rally behind.
My explanation b4 seeing this video. It's the injection of anecdotal "evidence" in the debate (that cannot be reasoned with) as a validation for their explanation that category people X is suffering from condition Y. It's ersatz data.
Jordan Peterson taught phenomenology in his university lectures. Having studied Marxism thoroughly and also being quite anti-Marxist himself, it is strange that he didn't put two and two together and realize that phenomenology is just another kind of Marxism.
@@RoddyFuhr In his recent video with Jonathan Pageau and Douglas Murray, he invoked the ideas of phenomenology and dialecticalism both somewhat favorably (I think he used them both as a perspective for a particular issue they were discussing)
@@J-Ton Marxism is so insidious. The marxists dress up their ideas so pleasantly that it's very hard to know when they've gotten a hold of you. According To Hotep Jesus, even democracy is just another kind of Marxism.
'Phenomology' / 'lived experiences' stem from Kant's 'Phenomenal World', in which we-allegedly-can't see things as they are in themselves-but only as they appear to our distorting human consciousness. That's when the truth left the station. Kant's disciples, such as Marx, drove our descent into subjectivity by taking the next logical steps, giving each kind of human consciousness (bourgeois, proletariate; black, white; male, female) its own truth / Phenomenal world to occupy. Now we're at the point where each person, having their own unique individual consciousness, has their own truth (lived experience) The trick Kant used to effectively shut the door on the Enlightenment (consciously, in his words "to deny reason to make room for faith") which has been too rarely exposed and challenged-instead he's been near-universally lauded as a champion of the enlightenment, because of his superficial political view-is turning the fact of requiring a method of knowing into an invalidation of knowledge itself. The bent stick in water trick used to invalidate the senses, applied to the mind. He argued that since our minds operate in a certain way, they only give us knowledge in human form-a subjective, human understanding of reality-not as it is in itself. You see a chair - but not every atom of it. Nakedly, his position is: You're blind, because you have eyes. You're deaf, because you have ears. You're insane-because you have a mind. By this logic, even God-with godly means of knowing-would be a delusional being confined to a godly 'lived experience', cut off from the truth / reality as it really is. The essential error (or trick) in Kant's argument is his assertion that an inability to know a thing in totality means a total break from knowledge itself. Some knowledge is SOME knowledge nonetheless, and it's not necessarily trivial or misleading. A perceptual level understanding of a chair is useful for surviving and thriving. The standard for conceptual knowledge is not omniscience, but, as Aristotle identified 2000 years ago, grounding in sensory evidence-which never errs, the senses being purely mechanistic. To know an idea is true, connect it to sensory evidence. Perceptual knowledge comes directly from the senses, which have a perfect connection with reality, so is beyond the need to prove (it is the means of proving) The sense, as Aristotle noted, are the gateways to knowledge.
Also, each newly invented “cause” of an event or condition is an open invitation for a government “solution” leading to ever more control. A causation multiplier.
Quite. Ironically, despite what our broader secular culture might think, _the Bible itself_ laid out specific criteria with which to test prophets and other would-be religious leaders. Expecting someone to just accept your authority without evidence to back it up is stupid and immoral.
First step when dealing with the ledt is to assume everything they do and say is a disingenuous power play. They do not act on good faith, and their philosophy is designed to subvert, undermine and destroy anything and everything it is unleashed on. It isn't meant to make sense, and it certainly isn't meant to work within the context of the scientific method or the philosophies that our society was actually built on. It's purpose isn't to act within the bounds of science ect, it's to subvert them, and replace scientific rigor with authoritarian dictates. "Believe the science, trust the science, the science is settled" ring any alarm bells? It should, because that's leftist science, which is about self appointed "experts" telling the great unwashed what to think, or else. Science has no hierarchy, no leaders, because it's a process, a tool. Nowadays you are told not to do your own research lest you come to the "incorrect" conclusion. That's not how science works, it is a method that can be used by anyone and you don't need a fancy degree to practice it, nor come to sound conclusions about the nature of reality. They don't want anyone to be able to have independent thoughts. That's what this is really about. "Power to the people" except the "people" is actually a special class of technocrats who rule over everyone with an iron fist.
Steven Crowder ran into this on his “rape culture doesn’t exist” change my mind. A woman who claimed to be raped categorically asserted that there was a rape culture bc of her experience…. And I don’t think he actually was able to get her to recognize that not being able to get justice for your rape doesn’t mean there is a rape culture.
This is a complicated issue. Depending on the "fact", it is true that in some cases lived experience is the best evidence, and in other cases measurable data is the best evidence. Consider the taste of grapefruit. You could read 1000 pages of description of how it tastes, yet in literally 5 seconds you could learn vastly more about how it tastes by tasting some. The reason is that the experience of taste is not specifically measurable. Sure, the acidity level can be objectively measured of a specific grapefruit, and it is even possible to take averages across many and predict that people will generally report "sour" as among the tastes. So it isn't that taste is entirely divorced from science, but it is a fact that the experience of tasting a grapefruit can never, ever, be replicated by scientific explanations. So we can turn to the subjective experience of being repressed and ask if this is a matter of science or not. Clearly it isn't. Therefore, these people are not entirely wrong. The hurricane example is different, because we have records, and Don's memories are not relevant in this case if overridden by well kept records. Finally to Bret's case, which is the most difficult. Bret asking for "evidence of racism" is a questionable request. It isn't that there can be no evidence of it, but it is that it is true that a lack of evidence won't prove that it isn't there. Why? Because racism is a state of mind, and science doesn't give access to private thoughts. Of course what he meant here is that he wanted to see evidence of racist statements, writing, or actions, and this is a reasonable request. The response that, "I feel like people are thinking racist thoughts" could be true even if they aren't thinking like this. The problem for the students here is that they probably wanted Bret to care about such feelings even if they are based on pure presumption, but, and here is the key point, it cannot be proven either way. This trick of pressing for action in cases that cannot be proven either way is also used by Rawls. He claims that if the system is maximizing the advantages of the least advantaged that it is a moral system, but this depends on something that can never be proven either way. Therefore, it is a garbage theory. In sum, when something cannot be proven either way, there is no particular problem with claiming that you believe it is one way or the other. The problem is pressing for changes without evidence, which is exactly what the students were doing with Bret. His response should be, "I don't doubt that some of you are feeling there is racism, and I also don't doubt that there may be actual racism, but we cannot justly act without clear evidence of it." Why? Because correcting anything requires understand the actual state of affairs. It is that simple.
The New Puritans by Andrew Doyle handles this very well. The lived experience of teenage girls was used to convict many people during the Salem witch trials. Is this what we want to return to the,?
My lived experience is that I’m the smartest person in the room at all times and everyone is an idiot and they’ve only ever effed up stuff. My live experience is also that I am the only producer around and I am creating actual GDP and expending labor which results in money, while others sit around and collect checks. That is my lived experience
"My lived experience"... Lindsay gave a great example of having a panic attack. Their lived experience is that they are having a heart attack, but it's not true. It's a panic attack.
Lived experience can relate to all sorts of things not just Marxism. It is because of my lived experience that I will proclaim that I am a racist. But that is where there is an error. Before you can discuss all these things you have to define your terms. I have just listened to a programme where they kept referring to reported "racist crimes". Not once did they define what they meant by racism.
The concept of ‘lived experience’ embraces the subjective phenomenon of ‘mystic knowing’, possessing superior ‘spiritual insight’, ‘gnosis’ knowing better than the normal, benighted human being operating under the misinformation of ‘false consciousness’ and ‘the ideology of the other tribe’. The Venn diagram of ‘lived experience’ includes the vanguard of people who generate original woke bullshit as well as those who come to adopt it and transmit it second hand. All lived experiences are equal, but some lived experiences are more equal than others! Guess who’s.
@@shindig9000 I understand that he wants to find the origins of today's political problems and ideologies in the philosophical works they mention, etc. But it does so in a very problematic way, because it does not delve into the actual reflection of the original works. That would take a really long time. In principle, we are free to use terms like Lived experience however we want, but I must add that this is not very productive and just adds to the confusion of things. Lived experience is not another word for opinion (doxa). It is actually a term from a phenomenology, very serious philosophical school started by Husserl. He was a mathematician and philosopher who tried to solve the crisis of science and society and to find a methodology to justify knowledge (go beyond doxa) and maintain a clear expression. But Husserl's phenomenology is quite different from Hegel's phenomenology. Totally different. And btw. young Hegelians, who were indeed leftists, are not the same as "leftists" or democrats in america today. Hegel can be read as a right-wing philosopher as can be "leftist. But that is not today's democratic party "left".
Phenomenology is NOT the study of causes. Maybe that was Hegel's take. I've never read Hegel. But your take on phenomenology is completely foreign to what I understand of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, and other phenomenologists. Phenomenologists set aside causality. I'm really confused by your take on this.
So we take demonstrable facts about the world, inject our own human fallability and bias into it and call it "superior knowledege."?Sounds like a flawless way to engage in intellectual pursuits. Pathos is a wonderful thing when it comes to the arts but logos is the only way to make important, impactful decisions that are not certain to end in boundless suffering.
With reference to 'the causes' of the problem at around 14mins - isn't this simply a way to assign blame for whatever is wrong in your life because you're unwilling or unable to take personal responsibility? What kind of person wants to blame others for their problems - an immature one. Isn't this really the crux of the problem? Immature people who are angry at the world because they don't have what they feel entitled to, regardless of how the problem is dressed up?
And the answer, in their own terms is ... Their naive and shallow synthesis of the dialectic is still too abstract, because they stop only at societal constructs. Were they capable of thinking in more concrete terms they would reach the higher level of understanding which 99.9% of the world's population already has. TL;DR They are living examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect producing constant failure and disaster.
Gen X, Tens of Millions of us have rhe Lived Experience of having racism on the ropes. They CANNOT DENY IT. Time to speak up about reality and not let the kids of today be fooled. We laughed at racist jokes about others and ourselves but regarded racist people as fools stuck in the horrible past we were lucky to be born after. In the 90s if you were against racism it just meant you were a regular person. The person making the hard-core racist jokes usually got the hint nobody was laughing with him and occasionally he got knocked out . We had tough conversations without worrying about pissing each other off. Don't let the TV, tablet, phone or Teacher make you hate your neighbor. Too much togetherness isn't good for those at the top sticking it to us so Division has become the game once again and. Politicians been playing that game since forever but 1996 Telcomm Act made it much easier. It's WWE, good guys, bad guys. Heels, sudden twists, betrayals, redemption, shady managers, blind referees and most importantly, predetermined outcomes.
Now I finally got it: it's my racist physics teachers from 80s in Zhina who taught me: "heavy and light objects fall at the same speed", even tho my "lived experience" says "heavier objects fall faster than light objects" I finally got it: Physics is racist, even if it was taught by Chinese to Chinese! LOL
There's my story, you're story, and the what really happened. My story is lived experience... It isn't the truth about what happened, but My limited subjective perception of what actually happened, which makes it flawed. It's a one sided perception. Not the whole of the objective reality.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Mamushi (Remix) [feat. TWICE] [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5c0_u9PsrsQ/mqdefault.jpg)
My fiancé is a social worker. She was taught to value everybody's personal experiences and to see them all as equally valid and truthful. She defended it fiercely and said that it's an important part of psychotherapeutic care. To show her just how intellectually schizophrenic the concept is, I pulled the "lived experience" card during a small argument one day. When she continued to challenge me, saying that my anecdotal experience has no bearing on fact, I kept repeating how prejudiced and intolerant she was because she was refusing to accept my truth and experience as valid. That was when she realized just how untenable and impractical the concepts of "lived experience" and "subjective truth" are.
Objectivity=intersubjectivity
In support of the point. Jordan Peterson says that therapists and mental health professionals have no business affirming anything claimed by the client/patient. He says he is "on the side of you that aims up," not on what you think is best. If what you thought was best were working you wouldn't need professional help!
im sorry for your future financial destitution by the incoming divorce.
My social worker back when I was a child chose to pull the "sudden onset" card regarding the fact that I'd been diagnosed with Aspergers (a mess of individual external influences/traumas/etc stemming from "surviving" almost being aborted by a DIY attempt, family split-up, being used as a bargaining chip or weapon as such against my father, mild form of early gender dysphoria due to the failed abortion, etc).
The social worker would pull the card to try and dismiss my say in court against her when she tried to split I from my father, because I said to the court according to what I was asked and my social worker didn't like my answer, she told the judge that I couldn't possibly be of a sound enough mind purely on the basis I've been diagnosed as having Autism Spectrum Disorder.
They pick and chose what "lived experience" fits what they want at any given time, luckily the judge at the time saw right through her.... Only for almost a couple years later to pull a false claim of threat to have I and my older bro kidnapped by police and put into "care".
Even though I'm glad, now I've been independent for over a decade and at age 31, that my childhood social worker is now buried after succumbing to her obesity, I see comments like yours and wonder if my social worker started out with good intent aking to your fiance, but unlike your fiance, my social worker got brainwashed by the harmful ideology that was the mess of my childhood and a major reason I remain just within the androgyny valley (of the "femboy" leaning attributes) instead of sorting out the mess of a body I got.
So, basically, I'm glad your SO came to terms before she ended up like my social worker.
@@neglectfulsausage7689 Just because Blake Stone and his fiancé had an argument and he pointed out the flaw in her logic, it doesn't mean he's destined for incoming divorce. In fact, I think it brought them closer together.
Politics used to be how people who disagree can get along without killing each other. Now it's just an excuse to do that exact thing. They don't want to debate you; they want to subjugate you.
Last line is important. Anyone with an ounce of logic promoting wokism is doing so cynically, for Power.
That's how the spectre of Communism haunts our world.
Just like Islam.
My sister is 6 ft 3 in tall and weighs 105 lbs. she hardly eats and thinks she is fat she sometimes purges after eating because she “identifies” as obese. Whenever we have Thanksgiving dinner I affirm her identity by telling her what a fat gross disgusting pig she is and I compliment her by telling her how brave and courageous she is
@@Xbalanque84 At least Islam builds and sustains societies of some kind, Wokism only destroys and leaves nothing behind.
'' Lived Experience'' is merely another way of saying ''My Opinion'. That is all
"my SUBJECTIVE opinion"
You're wrong. It's another way of saying I'm right no matter how much what I'm saying clashes with reality.
@@typingcat This is redundant. Every opinion is subjective. There is no objective opinion.....
@@gordordf1091 It's literary emphasis.
Not really. In my line of work I had to interview a lot of r*pe victims. So they had lived experiences of violence, violation and loss of agency. Then I also interviewed experts who studied violence and agency in theory. So I have to consider which experience should I use when creating an effective counseling session for Victims of sexual abuse.
My lived experience is that using lived experience as evidence leads to grossly inaccurate results.
Witty but it won't work, ya racist transphobe bigot, you.
My experience is that my own "lived experiences" tend to be impossible to verify to outside parties, and unless tangibly relevant to a given conversation are cheapened by being brought up.
Haha good one, I’m going to use that in debates
My over 60 years of lived experience says these folks are bananas.
"Lived experience", also known as personal anecdote
Excellent! Yes! This should be the immediate response to anyone claiming “lived experience.”
Which any intellectually honest person can tell you is of supremely limited value in any argument.
My sister is 6 ft 3 in tall and weighs 105 lbs. she hardly eats and thinks she is fat she sometimes purges after eating because she “identifies” as obese. Whenever we have Thanksgiving dinner I affirm her identity by telling her what a fat gross disgusting pig she is and I compliment her by telling her how brave and courageous she is
ahahah, not quite! ..it's personal anecdote sanctified by the One True Ideology (ie. the Hegel-derived cult mindset).
@@MoonshineH >y'all
They misspelled ‘Libbed Experience’ 🤓
Lived experience is an emotional interpretation of an event or events at its best, and a ruthless attempt at manipulating another person at its worst.
💯
My lived experience is that i like this channel and appreciate the info you’re providing
I’m a new school board member and these videos have been tremendously helpful. We can’t fight something we don’t understand. Thank you James!
I have lived in Florida my whole live. There was a 12 year gap from 2005-2017 when there were no storms.
My lived experience says they are decreasing.
Celia hit corpus Christi with 140 mph winds and 180 gusts, but that was 1970.
Didn't even get out of bed for Harvey , but Rockport got whacked.
What a difference 20 or 30 miles can make.
Wind radius maps helped me escape hurricane fever and Ian was the first one I can remember where they used them because it was just so big. Typically they show you a picture of a hurricane that fills the entire Gulf of Mexico, screaming you're all going to die
Destructive weather events are expected to increase, but over decades. No individual event can be attributed to CC, per (for example) Potholer54 who reads and presents the actual scientific studies. He is a retired oil geologist, familiar with the history of Earth via rock layers and glaciers.
One of his major peeves is people on both sides of the debate citing politicians and bloggers and pop-sci journals that put their own spin on reasonable fact finding, and make exaggerated claims.
One example was saying Aus drought and fires were proof of CC. Actual scientists who study CC never said that.
On the other hand, a scientist in the late 1800s noted that CO2 behaved like a greenhouse gas and he predicted with careful calculations that a sharp rise in CO2 emissions from the early and rising Industrial Age would have somewhat predictable effects.
This is entirely different from Al Gore's public relations movie.
He also pointed to the first politician to embrace this science, a decade before Al Gore: Margaret Thatcher.
What ruined it for Maggie was her movement got taken over and co-opted by ... MARXISTS who insisted that the only solution was to abolish capitalism.
Not just your experience, but the actual data. Ian was still TOTALLY from climate change though, because we all know individual events are what climate means
@@smokeydapot I was born in Texas in 1965 and my lived experience dictates that it is getting warmer , had I been born in the twenties I would know better , and that's why The Science likes to start their trends at the late seventies when it was cold as hell.
@@smokeydapot I think you intend that to be a humorous sarcastic comment, bc scientists don't or can't attribute individual events or even localized events directly to what they define as climate change.
Weather is too chaotic. I'm not a mathematician but I'm aware of the development of chaos theory for systems that don't react predictably to a calculus formula that might apply to a machine.
BROAD TRENDS over time, including a tendency for more erratic weather patterns, and a change in average _global_ temperatures NOT local temperatures.
One of the effects suggested in past winters was destabilizing of high pressure zones in the Arctic that allow Arctic cold fronts to dip down farther and longer into temperate zones, bringing more Arctic deep freeze to America, while the larger overall global effect is warming on average.
The most dire predictions are of temperate North America becoming uninhabitable.
'Lived experience' seems to be best summarized as a fancy way of saying 'because I say so'.
Only a mathematician can go this deep into subjects like this and explain them with logic. Thank You James, much ❤ from germany!
Lived experience is what the stoics call impressions. Stoicism is mainly a system for questioning these impressions and, by doing so, helping people flourish.
My grandson is currently exploring stoicism.
This is one hell of a channel 👌
First one to like! You were great on Benny's podcast last night!
When i think of this concept i think its what the woke beureacratic middle class lack, reflected in how detached from the average person they are, in their sense of trauma, of humour, of what makes us human, etc. Utterly nil lived experience.
That's an interesting point. It's so true. I've met many university Marxists where I'm at and they're so book-cucked that it's so handy to take on the collective personality dictated by race/privilege since they lack strong personality/character
Thank You for the detailed explanation, it's important to breakdown these concepts to expose them to the next generation before they are infected.
This reminds me of the Michael Knowles claim is committing violence against them. He says of course he is not, but they reply that he never asked them if they *felt* like violence was being committed against them. To which he replied that of course he didn't because it's an objective fact that he did not.
Lived Experience = "I'm right no matter what evidence you have to the contrary."
Thanks James.
Lived experience = Anecdote, which people used to understand = "NOT EVIDENCE"
Not evidence, unless you have the "correct" lived experience, then it is their ideological trump card.
Chasing "reason" for things has the "turtles all the way down" problem.
Thinking on this more, the turtles all the way down problem is only solved by picking a resolution that works for you. We all do it. The Left pics a new level for everything based on what serves them in that moment with that one thing. A healthy person is going to pick a general level for most things that is ground in reality and gives them some control in their life. It's a constant problem all human's have to deal with, because there are always more turtles down below that allows you to blame others. Fault isn't as important as responsibility and that distinction is lost and causes people to fear the higher level turtles. Don't descent into a depressing personal hell. Pick a higher level turtle.
Our own experience IS lived experience and we draw from it, but it may be that we can go on to experience something else in later life that amelorates our previously strongly held 'beliefs '..hmmm
True open-mindedness necessitates being able to potentially reevaluate old conclusions in the face of new, conflicting information, neither of which warrant disregarding outright.
Based on what I've learned before in addition to this, I see this: lived experience = mystical knowledge of the world. Basically, all these things Marxism and Neo-Marxism churned up is, we have the "higher consciousness," we have the secret knowledge of the world, so our "lived experience" overcomes reality. Another thing I can connect to this is Rhonda Byrne's The Secret, which believes man is God and human thoughts can alter reality. Both this and Marxism I believe are descended from Gnosticism.
Another philosophical argument I recall is the idea that something cannot exist unless a consciousness acknowledges its existence. For example, if the earth existed as a ball of rock without humans on it, it will be explained by "lived experience" as not existing at all. Saying "it doesn't exist for humans only because they're not around" is still wrong for them. It doesn't exist, period. It's another way of establishing man as God.
Its like twisting lies intk the truth . We have to stand up to this . Thanks , James
It's funny, as someone who has had religious experiences before, I can appreciate the transformative value/consciousness-raising of phenomenology... _to a point._ In my own "lived experience," it's also a profoundly humbling to go through. The very act of meeting God gave me a newfound appreciation of _why_ people might not believe, because the incident I'm currently thinking of _transcended rationality and logic._ To quote Harley Warren from _The Statement of Randolph Carter,_ "It's too utterly beyond thought!" Said experience was also utterly subjective, in that I had no means of verifying one way or another that what happened to me _actually happened_ in a way that most sane people outside my religion would reasonably believe, let alone in a way that would be admissible in court or acceptable in an academic journal (save perhaps in an ethnographic study using me as a subject for interview). (I have since had shared experiences with others, but those were all things that don't really warrant serious news coverage.) I had no corroborating evidence for what I had been through, _and I was okay with that._ If nothing else, it hammered home a lesson I had been taught in church up to that point but never internalized: God wants to form personal relationships with His creations, and correspondingly, some aspects of friendships are best kept private between relevant parties.
Furthermore, I was not in a position (nor did I even want to) to claim that I had achieved special transcendence that left me better than other people. What I experienced left me with a better understanding of fundamental reality and my place within it, and any attempt on my part to convey said experience would never come close to conveying the gravity of going through it firsthand. I was fundamentally in no position to claim authority on anything, _nor should I necessarily be in this domain, where I remain a but a lay-student._ Based on my understanding of the Bible, my experience (harrowing though it was) was but a taste of what humans are called by their Creator to do anyway. Even if I could reasonably claim some kind of authority here, _to what end?_
These would-be hierophants in their own narcissistic cults of self-worship display none of the genuine humility _or solemnity_ I have observed (both in myself and others) of those who actually touch upon higher spheres of existence. As ever, it always comes back to grasping for power, by hook or by crook, using whatever bluffs or cheats can get them into a position to dominate others. The English language does not have a word for how thoroughly this mindset and wanton lack of moral fiber sickens me.
Thank you for sharing this.
+1 good write. it takes something to talk openly and publicly about transcendent experience self consciously. it sounds like a similar experience to described psychedelics and something called "ego death."
experience - a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something.
Lived experience is a tautology (because experience can't be not lived) that, I agree, is used to underscore the importance of one's personal events to shut down any debates or discourses ;)
Today is 10/7/22, Tony Heller uploaded a video to RUclips on hurricane Ian and the other major hurricanes going back to the late 1800’s. Short video, well worth watching.
Isn't all life experience lived? Is there unlived experience?
Yes, when you're as dead as some if these woke people, that's an accurate description
Probably every experience which contradicts the correct lived experience that you should have - doesn't count as lived :D
@@spectralisation no, it just doesn't count at all as 'lived experience' at all. Those who don't tow the line are merely victims of internalized self discrimination.
Unlived experience - (1) recounting stories you heard others telling and passing them off as your own lived experience. (2) faking an experience ie hiring people to "attack" you to claim you're a victim of racism.
There is unlived experience, and that is, ever since the rise of covidianism, "the science." There is lived experience, which reaches exactly as far as one's own nose, and fiat by expert, which is the atheist imperialist version of objective reality. Let's return to Truth.
These started with a 12 minute maximum, and are now routinely twice that length and starting to converge towards full ND podcast length. I appreciate the content but is the intended target audience of this series still reachable at this length?
the counterpoint logic to the claim of authority through "lived experience" is the concept of bias and the idea that a more removed perspective is more valid.
Jack, buddy, no one claiming "lived experience" is going to care about your logic. Unfortunately.
Some people use "my truth" instead of "lived experience". And Don Lemon has used "my truth" in his monologues as well.
"Lived Experience" is a stand in for actual perceptions, real or imagined, that confirm the biases of the person who is passing those perceptions off as "Lived Experience".
All real informative, but I was expecting to hear how to counter the argument. You laid out the problem; arm your listeners with with a solution; how to fight BACK this "but my loved experience" argument whenever it arises.
Receiving Christ and God's Holy Spirit is lived experience, yet these people refuse to accept it because it doesn't fit their solipsistic and nihilistic narratives.
I agree, sort of. Actually I see the reception of Christ and the Holy Spirit as belonging to objective reality, and they are at war with objective reality. I would be careful regarding contact with God as a purely personal experience, since you would be playing into their hand. Notice how the Covidian cultists all wanted people to meet God alone, and outside of the common experience of the Church? They shut down the Churches to turn the Universal into the personal, where they can dismiss it out of hand. These people are demons. Guard your discernment.
It also tends to be extremely humbling. Meanwhile, this crowd is arrogance incarnate.
Sadly, I can affirm Don Lemon's " lived experience" of living in the South, but no where NEAR a coast or Florida. He grew up in NORTH Louisiana and moved to Brooklyn after highschool. Hurricanes are an issue on the Gulf Coast obviously, but Baton Rouge is very much "up state". He loves to act like a guru on all things Southern, including the racism of going to a diverse upscale school, where he was elected to student council and very popular. He praised his school experience until he got woke in 2016.
“yOu HaVe nOt SeEn WhAt i HaVe SeEn”
Lived experience as opposed to ... unlived experience? I always just assumed the phrase was coined because citing "anecdotal" would be embarrassing.
Excellent short summation of an important concept in wokesim from James Lindsay.
Lived experience is just a codeword for opinion .
It’s a pretty slick con. You get to blame everyone else for everything, attempt to control everyone else and never take responsibility for yourself.
The tricky part is that there is some truth to the lives experience, but it doesn’t help the individual take charge and make changes for themselves.
My lived experience says Tampa hasn't been whacked in a hundred years
They have it all the other way around. Science is above lived experience; science is the interpretation of distributions, lived experience is a point in a distribution.
I work in disability services. Why cant we implement person centred care and empowering individuals to have agency instead of this affront to truth.
Fascinating thanks
Lived experience is anecdote. It's the equivalent of "God spoke to me, that's why I have faith. I can't prove it happened, but it totally happened. Trust me, bro". Somehow, the cultists have completely inverted the value of objective data with anecdote. And somehow, a ton of atheists and skeptics don't notice or point this out. That's pretty mind blowing and eye opening for me to see.
LOL I just posted about this! Of course, as someone who _has_ had such experiences, I know better than to use them to claim authority or field them as serious arguments.
Atheism is too often not a LACK of belief, but rather a faith-based DISbelief. Peter Hitchens described these atheists as clinging to the hope that there will be no consequences for their actions in life.
Fits the commie crowd well.
As someone who has argued against all forms of relativism my whole life, I find this new vigor for it particularly egregious and dangerous to all epistemological pursuits. From my layperson's perspective, I've always seen it as intellectual weakness or a lack of considered analysis when people speak in or defend a relativistic argument. I had no idea that it has a root in actual theory or that it is valued as a 'higher' form of knowing. This takes an already flawed and counter-productive way of seeing the world and magnifies it to be many times more dangerous than I had realised. Thanks James for continuing to shed vital light on this grotesque intellectual and cultural disease.
The issue of "Verstand and Vernunft" is that it's scientifically true, but the left has then argued that experience is how you have vernunft which is completely wrong
Experience is Verstand. (I experience hunger therefore I understand the feeling of hunger)
It then takes someone to be objective to explain the "why" of that experience, such as a biochemist. A person feels hunger because of biochemical responses which evolved as a survival mechanism to prevent an animal from dying
As the ideologues reject objectivity they reverse this process so they can assert they subjectively know better than that which is demonsterable. To use a turn of phrase from another ideological camp "they're putting on their God-glasses"
Reason is higher than understanding. But "lived experience" is not reason
It's the natural political progression of appeal to authority. Practically lived experience increases polical power, when everyone is their own authority in a democracy it strengthens the force of the public will. Dialectically abolishing the individual by imbracing the subjective individual.
Is this what they allude to when they throw around the fancy word "epistemic"?
It's a fancy way of (if they are being honest) my collection of anecdotal evidence and how I feel about them.
That definition of phenomenology is not a good one. Phenomenology can be really useful when studied and utilized in the right way - the majority of serious phenomenologists wouldn’t say that objective reality doesn’t exist.
He is clueless what phenomenology is. He is so so wrong, it's bad.
It’s exactly the same as “My Truth”
Hey Jimmy, where do I sign up to become a gnostic? HaHaHaHa.😜
Gnosticism is heresy. Return to Orthodoxy.
I agree that the immense weight given to “lived experience” (or more accurately, the right people’s lived experience) in favor of actual data or stats is extremely problematic.
But I think that it does stem from those specific situations where evidence can be ignored, destroyed, or not exist in a form that can be examined by outside parties. So the only possible source is the people involved and what they say.
An example that concerns me the most are incidences of sexual harassment or assault. When I was assaulted there were no other people around, and since I managed to get away before he could rape me I only sustained injuries that were the result of being shoved to the ground. I didn’t know the person, so in the end I had zero evidence, and the incident can’t even be recorded as a statistic. The only way to get the evidence needed would have been for me to let him rape me. I’ve felt a lot of guilt ever since for *not* just putting up with it and letting him do it, because if he’s hurt another woman I could have possibly prevented it.
But as you pointed out in this video, the conversation for how to handle these types of he-said she-said situations has morphed into the narrative that anecdotes are the ONLY reliable source of information, not just for situations where that is the only evidence but for any claim at all, regardless of evidence. Now claims of sexual assault hold the same weight as “I used to live there, and I’m sure the storms are getting worse”. This makes them even easier to ignore by those on the right, and just a prop for the left, easily forgotten when there’s a newer, more exciting experience to rally behind.
Isn't lived experience a redundant term? Hard to have post mortem experience.
So basically, "lived experience" is anecdotal evidence reviewed with an approved notion.
"lived experience" can mean different things to different people. So NO.
Read Husserl.
My explanation b4 seeing this video.
It's the injection of anecdotal "evidence" in the debate (that cannot be reasoned with) as a validation for their explanation that category people X is suffering from condition Y.
It's ersatz data.
Jordan Peterson taught phenomenology in his university lectures. Having studied Marxism thoroughly and also being quite anti-Marxist himself, it is strange that he didn't put two and two together and realize that phenomenology is just another kind of Marxism.
It’s not. Look at John Vervaeke’s work.
He also seems to believe in dialecticalism to some degree
@@J-Ton How so?
@@RoddyFuhr In his recent video with Jonathan Pageau and Douglas Murray, he invoked the ideas of phenomenology and dialecticalism both somewhat favorably (I think he used them both as a perspective for a particular issue they were discussing)
@@J-Ton Marxism is so insidious. The marxists dress up their ideas so pleasantly that it's very hard to know when they've gotten a hold of you. According To Hotep Jesus, even democracy is just another kind of Marxism.
“You don’t see what I see. Everyday as Warren G”
Fearing higher crime rates caused by this ideology is another lived experience.
"It's my lived experience!"
"Soooo, what's the evidence that this is really your lived experience?"
'Phenomology' / 'lived experiences' stem from Kant's 'Phenomenal World', in which we-allegedly-can't see things as they are in themselves-but only as they appear to our distorting human consciousness. That's when the truth left the station.
Kant's disciples, such as Marx, drove our descent into subjectivity by taking the next logical steps, giving each kind of human consciousness (bourgeois, proletariate; black, white; male, female) its own truth / Phenomenal world to occupy.
Now we're at the point where each person, having their own unique individual consciousness, has their own truth (lived experience)
The trick Kant used to effectively shut the door on the Enlightenment (consciously, in his words "to deny reason to make room for faith") which has been too rarely exposed and challenged-instead he's been near-universally lauded as a champion of the enlightenment, because of his superficial political view-is turning the fact of requiring a method of knowing into an invalidation of knowledge itself. The bent stick in water trick used to invalidate the senses, applied to the mind.
He argued that since our minds operate in a certain way, they only give us knowledge in human form-a subjective, human understanding of reality-not as it is in itself. You see a chair - but not every atom of it.
Nakedly, his position is: You're blind, because you have eyes. You're deaf, because you have ears. You're insane-because you have a mind.
By this logic, even God-with godly means of knowing-would be a delusional being confined to a godly 'lived experience', cut off from the truth / reality as it really is.
The essential error (or trick) in Kant's argument is his assertion that an inability to know a thing in totality means a total break from knowledge itself. Some knowledge is SOME knowledge nonetheless, and it's not necessarily trivial or misleading. A perceptual level understanding of a chair is useful for surviving and thriving.
The standard for conceptual knowledge is not omniscience, but, as Aristotle identified 2000 years ago, grounding in sensory evidence-which never errs, the senses being purely mechanistic. To know an idea is true, connect it to sensory evidence.
Perceptual knowledge comes directly from the senses, which have a perfect connection with reality, so is beyond the need to prove (it is the means of proving) The sense, as Aristotle noted, are the gateways to knowledge.
Iv been living it all my lived experience
Also, each newly invented “cause” of an event or condition is an open invitation for a government “solution” leading to ever more control. A causation multiplier.
Is there such a thing as "unlived experience"?
But if they can't give me evidence did they really live it ? I mean what kind of society would they build without evidence ?
Quite. Ironically, despite what our broader secular culture might think, _the Bible itself_ laid out specific criteria with which to test prophets and other would-be religious leaders. Expecting someone to just accept your authority without evidence to back it up is stupid and immoral.
First step when dealing with the ledt is to assume everything they do and say is a disingenuous power play. They do not act on good faith, and their philosophy is designed to subvert, undermine and destroy anything and everything it is unleashed on. It isn't meant to make sense, and it certainly isn't meant to work within the context of the scientific method or the philosophies that our society was actually built on. It's purpose isn't to act within the bounds of science ect, it's to subvert them, and replace scientific rigor with authoritarian dictates. "Believe the science, trust the science, the science is settled" ring any alarm bells? It should, because that's leftist science, which is about self appointed "experts" telling the great unwashed what to think, or else. Science has no hierarchy, no leaders, because it's a process, a tool. Nowadays you are told not to do your own research lest you come to the "incorrect" conclusion. That's not how science works, it is a method that can be used by anyone and you don't need a fancy degree to practice it, nor come to sound conclusions about the nature of reality. They don't want anyone to be able to have independent thoughts. That's what this is really about. "Power to the people" except the "people" is actually a special class of technocrats who rule over everyone with an iron fist.
Steven Crowder ran into this on his “rape culture doesn’t exist” change my mind. A woman who claimed to be raped categorically asserted that there was a rape culture bc of her experience…. And I don’t think he actually was able to get her to recognize that not being able to get justice for your rape doesn’t mean there is a rape culture.
This is a complicated issue. Depending on the "fact", it is true that in some cases lived experience is the best evidence, and in other cases measurable data is the best evidence. Consider the taste of grapefruit. You could read 1000 pages of description of how it tastes, yet in literally 5 seconds you could learn vastly more about how it tastes by tasting some. The reason is that the experience of taste is not specifically measurable. Sure, the acidity level can be objectively measured of a specific grapefruit, and it is even possible to take averages across many and predict that people will generally report "sour" as among the tastes. So it isn't that taste is entirely divorced from science, but it is a fact that the experience of tasting a grapefruit can never, ever, be replicated by scientific explanations.
So we can turn to the subjective experience of being repressed and ask if this is a matter of science or not. Clearly it isn't. Therefore, these people are not entirely wrong. The hurricane example is different, because we have records, and Don's memories are not relevant in this case if overridden by well kept records. Finally to Bret's case, which is the most difficult. Bret asking for "evidence of racism" is a questionable request. It isn't that there can be no evidence of it, but it is that it is true that a lack of evidence won't prove that it isn't there. Why? Because racism is a state of mind, and science doesn't give access to private thoughts. Of course what he meant here is that he wanted to see evidence of racist statements, writing, or actions, and this is a reasonable request. The response that, "I feel like people are thinking racist thoughts" could be true even if they aren't thinking like this. The problem for the students here is that they probably wanted Bret to care about such feelings even if they are based on pure presumption, but, and here is the key point, it cannot be proven either way.
This trick of pressing for action in cases that cannot be proven either way is also used by Rawls. He claims that if the system is maximizing the advantages of the least advantaged that it is a moral system, but this depends on something that can never be proven either way. Therefore, it is a garbage theory.
In sum, when something cannot be proven either way, there is no particular problem with claiming that you believe it is one way or the other. The problem is pressing for changes without evidence, which is exactly what the students were doing with Bret. His response should be, "I don't doubt that some of you are feeling there is racism, and I also don't doubt that there may be actual racism, but we cannot justly act without clear evidence of it." Why? Because correcting anything requires understand the actual state of affairs. It is that simple.
Funny how these methods always have the same **for use ONLY by those with a critical consciousness**... disclaimer.
What has been proven time and again is that the human recollection is inherently flawed due to personal bias.
The New Puritans by Andrew Doyle handles this very well.
The lived experience of teenage girls was used to convict many people during the Salem witch trials. Is this what we want to return to the,?
More short vids pls
A lived experience is an n of 1. As a mathematician I'm sure James knows this
It's all just a "Power Play". It works if you don't base your experience on any principles.
My lived experience is that I’m the smartest person in the room at all times and everyone is an idiot and they’ve only ever effed up stuff. My live experience is also that I am the only producer around and I am creating actual GDP and expending labor which results in money, while others sit around and collect checks. That is my lived experience
"My lived experience"...
Lindsay gave a great example of having a panic attack. Their lived experience is that they are having a heart attack, but it's not true. It's a panic attack.
How would you define ‘cynicism’?
Your first rendition of "Verstand" was correct. When you corrected yourself, you got the pronunciation wrong. Not that it matters ...☺️
OMG, he’s cracked the code! They are now doomed. (I wish it worked that way).
Don Lemon grew up in Louisiana. Not Florida. Bet you're not surprised.
Lived experience can relate to all sorts of things not just Marxism. It is because of my lived experience that I will proclaim that I am a racist. But that is where there is an error. Before you can discuss all these things you have to define your terms. I have just listened to a programme where they kept referring to reported "racist crimes". Not once did they define what they meant by racism.
"I am a racist."
-Jinn Buster
@@smokeydapot And?
This stuff is coo-coo for krazy puffs.
One of the worst things that's ever happened was Socialism not being recognized for the religion it is.
Peer review “lived experience” how ?
The concept of ‘lived experience’ embraces the subjective phenomenon of ‘mystic knowing’, possessing superior ‘spiritual insight’, ‘gnosis’ knowing better than the normal, benighted human being operating under the misinformation of ‘false consciousness’ and ‘the ideology of the other tribe’. The Venn diagram of ‘lived experience’ includes the vanguard of people who generate original woke bullshit as well as those who come to adopt it and transmit it second hand. All lived experiences are equal, but some lived experiences are more equal than others! Guess who’s.
This one was really good
He doesn't even discern betwen Hegel and Husserl. Very bad episode.
@@jankan4027
This could have been a really useful comment if you put more work into it 😅
@@shindig9000 I understand that he wants to find the origins of today's political problems and ideologies in the philosophical works they mention, etc. But it does so in a very problematic way, because it does not delve into the actual reflection of the original works. That would take a really long time. In principle, we are free to use terms like Lived experience however we want, but I must add that this is not very productive and just adds to the confusion of things. Lived experience is not another word for opinion (doxa). It is actually a term from a phenomenology, very serious philosophical school started by Husserl. He was a mathematician and philosopher who tried to solve the crisis of science and society and to find a methodology to justify knowledge (go beyond doxa) and maintain a clear expression. But Husserl's phenomenology is quite different from Hegel's phenomenology. Totally different. And btw. young Hegelians, who were indeed leftists, are not the same as "leftists" or democrats in america today. Hegel can be read as a right-wing philosopher as can be "leftist. But that is not today's democratic party "left".
@@jankan4027
Thanks for sharing your opinions and how you see it as problematic, I guess. 😅
@@shindig9000 no problem. Better to just watch The Big Lebowski
Phenomenology is NOT the study of causes. Maybe that was Hegel's take. I've never read Hegel. But your take on phenomenology is completely foreign to what I understand of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, and other phenomenologists. Phenomenologists set aside causality. I'm really confused by your take on this.
So we take demonstrable facts about the world, inject our own human fallability and bias into it and call it "superior knowledege."?Sounds like a flawless way to engage in intellectual pursuits. Pathos is a wonderful thing when it comes to the arts but logos is the only way to make important, impactful decisions that are not certain to end in boundless suffering.
With reference to 'the causes' of the problem at around 14mins - isn't this simply a way to assign blame for whatever is wrong in your life because you're unwilling or unable to take personal responsibility? What kind of person wants to blame others for their problems - an immature one. Isn't this really the crux of the problem? Immature people who are angry at the world because they don't have what they feel entitled to, regardless of how the problem is dressed up?
Arbitrary complexity. The opposite of Occam's razor
And the answer, in their own terms is ... Their naive and shallow synthesis of the dialectic is still too abstract, because they stop only at societal constructs. Were they capable of thinking in more concrete terms they would reach the higher level of understanding which 99.9% of the world's population already has. TL;DR They are living examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect producing constant failure and disaster.
Hello all you truth seekers 👋
"Libbed Experience"
Gen X, Tens of Millions of us have rhe Lived Experience of having racism on the ropes. They CANNOT DENY IT. Time to speak up about reality and not let the kids of today be fooled.
We laughed at racist jokes about others and ourselves but regarded racist people as fools stuck in the horrible past we were lucky to be born after. In the 90s if you were against racism it just meant you were a regular person. The person making the hard-core racist jokes usually got the hint nobody was laughing with him and occasionally he got knocked out . We had tough conversations without worrying about pissing each other off. Don't let the TV, tablet, phone or Teacher make you hate your neighbor.
Too much togetherness isn't good for those at the top sticking it to us so Division has become the game once again and. Politicians been playing that game since forever but 1996 Telcomm Act made it much easier.
It's WWE, good guys, bad guys. Heels, sudden twists, betrayals, redemption, shady managers, blind referees and most importantly, predetermined outcomes.
These bullets are becoming less concise. You don't need to repeat yourself this much.
Now I finally got it: it's my racist physics teachers from 80s in Zhina who taught me: "heavy and light objects fall at the same speed", even tho my "lived experience" says "heavier objects fall faster than light objects" I finally got it: Physics is racist, even if it was taught by Chinese to Chinese! LOL
“-BuT MuH LiVeD TrUtH!!”, “tHaT wAsNt REAL cOmMuNiSm!”…freakin entitled narcissists.
There's my story, you're story, and the what really happened.
My story is lived experience... It isn't the truth about what happened, but My limited subjective perception of what actually happened, which makes it flawed. It's a one sided perception. Not the whole of the objective reality.